The Real McCain
Frank Rich has an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times that answers the question, "Why isn't Obama leading in the polls by double digits?". LINK
So why isn’t Obama romping? The obvious answer — and both the excessively genteel Obama campaign and a too-compliant press bear responsibility for it — is that the public doesn’t know who on earth John McCain is. The most revealing poll this month by far is the Pew Research Center survey finding that 48 percent of Americans feel they’re “hearing too much” about Obama. Pew found that only 26 percent feel that way about McCain, and that nearly 4 in 10 Americans feel they hear too little about him. It’s past time for that pressing educational need to be met.What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president’s response to Katrina; he fought the “agents of intolerance” of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.
With the exception of McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.
Rich goes on to describe in detail how the Old McCain (no pun intended) is gone or never really existed, yet few people know this because the press hasn't reported much about the real McCain. My take on the media is that they are motivated by profit, and ratings drive profits. A blow out by Obama isn't very good for ratings so the Media builds narratives and creates controversy, real or imagined, in order to make the race appear closer than it really is. Now that the race is perceived to be even we may hear more about the Real McCain. I doubt it.
Since the media won't do much to show us the real McCain I thought I would do my part. As many of you know, after McCain returned from Viet Nam he immediately dumped his first wife who had been in a devastating car accident. Carol, McCain's first wife, used to be a beautiful model. As a result of the accident Carol McCain was left physically disabled and she was no longer the tall slender model married. John McCain eventually divorced Carol but while he was still married McCain began an affair with a 25 year old hottie who was the heiress to a beer distributor fortune. You can read more about McCain's callous treatment of his first wife here.
While John McCain's disloyalty to his first wife is fairly well known among the political junky class, what isn't well known is that McCain's mother sued Carol McCain shortly after the divorce was final. LINK
From the linked article:
Curiously, although the records clearly list the plaintiffs, McCain's campaign says his mother's 1980 lawsuit was filed "unintentionally" and that the Arizona senator didn't know about or authorize the 1990 lawsuit with his ex-wife, Carol. And McCain's 96-year-old mother, Roberta, says she never sued Carol.Others involved dispute those assertions.
In the 1980 lawsuit, filed shortly after John and Carol McCain divorced, Roberta sued Carol to reclaim some personal property, including paintings, a needlepoint screen and a pair of earrings. A settlement was reached in 1981.
As usual, McCain doesn't know anything about this. I can see why he would want to forget it. I wouldn't want to admit that I couldn't prevent my mother from suing the ex-wife I betrayed in order to marry a cheerleader.
The bottom line is....McCain is a self centered ass. If you want to vote for him because he is a Republican then I can understand that. What I can't understand is why people would want to vote for McCain because they think he is a stand up guy who should be admired. The real McCain is no such thing.
--
But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Blue Neponset's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -

The significance w/r/t media bias of the 48% of people who've heard too much about Obama blew right past you, apparently. And characterizing McCain as a man who "betrayed his ex-wife . . . in order to marry a cheerleader" is something I encourage you to stick with through the election, as it's a guaranteed winner.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
)...is reporting "too much" about Obama in order to make the race closer.
McCain did betray his ex-wife. Cheating on someone for years and years and years is a betrayal. I guess that IOKIYAR. Pretend McCain is a Democrat and it might be clearer to you.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Link.
Your take on the media's motives for its bias is a novel one.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )McCain isn't mentioned once in that article.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Now I think I have an inkling of why Mac wote his more recent post. Since you've already made your motivations clear...
...why do you think your post would be well received by anyone other than the most partisan liberals?
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)He came back in 1973 and as soon as he was able he started to cheat on his wife. It only ended with Cindy. You can read all about it here.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You wrote: "As many of you know, after McCain returned from Viet Nam he immediately dumped his first wife who had been in a devastating car accident."
No matter your motivations, you should at least get your facts right. McCain returned in '73, so you're simply wrong that he "immediately dumped his first wife". He "dumped" his wife in '80. Is it really necessary to look up the definition of immediately?
What we do know--from his own autobiography--was that he cheated on his first wife after he returned from 'Nam, although you and I don't know exactly when the cheating began. From your own link: "Their marriage began disintegrating while McCain was stationed in Jacksonville. McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs."
You've provided zero basis for "immediately".
You also conveniently omitted that McCain was separated from his first wife when he met Cindy. A small detail but telling, especially for a diarist who publicly proclaimed that it's OK to smear McCain and his family if that's what it takes to get Obama elected. Nice morals. Don't you find it ironic that you're bashing McCain for his personal character when you're so in favor of your liberal friends making dishonest attacks?
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Don't hate the playa, hate the game. This is how you win elections. Ask my friend Erick Erickson about it, if you don't believe me.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You've just told the readers here that facts don't matter. Nor does basic honesty. What Erickson thinks is his business, but I don't think he would refuse to correct basic facts. But hey, it's your credibility, or lack of it.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I withheld comment because I wanted to see how you'd respond to Bird Dog's point. All I can say to you is: Geez Louise, man. Be big enough to admit you were wrong about something.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )McCain's bio has some huge attack opportunities. Whether the attacks would be accurate or fair is irrelevant, of course. The appearance of impropriety is enough in politics.
My guess is there are two reasons it's not happening. First, Obama has seized the reins so completely in this election that no one is going to produce any ads without his OK, and Obama is worried that a smear campaign would belie the "new politics" image he's trying to cultivate. Second, the Democrats as a whole are very leery of attacking a war hero. They tried to tap into this dynamic by nominating Kerry last time, which didn't work so well (the Republicans are less vulnerable to charges of Troop Hatred).
The Democratic Party is so institutionally risk-averse that it's a wonder they ever win elections. I'm pretty sure they have enough of a tailwind right now that they will win the Presidency and pick up seats in Congress; but if they had a Gingrich or a Rove leading the pack, there'd be few Republicans left outside the South.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)Taxes, the economy and healthcare.
Significantly more people are hurt by the standard Republican policy solutions championed by McCain, than gain by them. Obama needs to hit this theme hard and take advantage of the bounce expected to follow his official nomination at the convention by campaigning hard on his substantial domestic agenda.
To the extent that non partisans care about foreign affairs, Obama has established his foreign policy credentials and shown that he is at least the equal of McCain on the world stage, job done. For the next phase he needs to address any remaining doubts amongst undecideds in respect to his proposed solutions to the domestic issues the electorate really care about. Obama would be foolish to follow McCain into the weeds with too much negative campaigning centered around 'character' issues. While he should be prepared to rebut the more egregious character assaults, he should concentrate on his message on policy proposals aimed at dealing with the perilous state of the domestic economy while pointing out that McCain has nothing but standard GOP platitudes and demagoguery to offer by way of comparison.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's both funny and sad that partisanship obstructs the otherwise active and sound critical thinking and reasoning of some folks. Depending on whose foot the shoe is on, the microscope is either used extensively (and findings included or discarded depending on whether they support or refute one's desired conclusion) or put on the shelf along with one's glasses (whatever people on their side -- candidate, party, fellow partisans, etc. -- are telling them is there is good enough for them).
Case in point:
Obama built his candidacy throughout the primaries and still today -- both his strategic offense (superior judgment; stronger against the Iraq war, and not to blame for it) and his strategic defence (deflecting the charge that he's too inexperienced) -- on his opposition to the Iraq war in 2002, as evidenced by a speech he gave at the time. This, he argues, showed superior judgment than all the more experienced candidates, and after all, if the reason experience is valued is for the judgment it provides, no need for the experience if he acquired the judgment without it, and in fact, better to go with the guy with the superior judgment.
His supporters (the same ones who are skeptical of anything claimed by anyone on the other side, and who put their critical thinking and their investigative powers into overdrive to find a reason to reject the claim) have apparently swallowed that argument hook, line and sinker without ever giving it a second thought.
Well, if a Toyota salesman tells me that the Toyota Camry is better than the Nissan Maxima, is it because he really believes it, or because he's selling the Camry and not the Maxima?
Well, as one columnist put it when discussing Obama's 2002 opposition to going to war in Iraq:
Perhaps Obama truly believed everything he said, that it was clear to him that war (or its authorization by Congress) was the wrong action at that time. Or perhaps he thought the opposite, but was disingenuously taking that position to please his constituency. Or (and this I consider most likely), he was somewhere close to the fence, but went with pleasing his constituency as essentially the tie-breaker. If it's either the second or third, then as for Obama's whole "superior judgment" claim -- well, NO SOUP FOR YOU!
But my point here isn't mainly to knock Obama's claim -- although I may have posted at some point on that -- but rather to point out how ridiculous it is that many of the same people who are beyond extremely skeptical of claims from the other side (and who devote effort to supposedly debunking such claims) are utterly naive (or at least act that way) when it comes to stuff claimed by their own side (and devote effort to promoting such claims).
Come on, folks. Use your brains and your energies with some reasonable degree of even-handedness (and I'd suggest a healthy degree of skepticism applied to all such claims). Try to be equal opportunity critical thinkers.
Here's a fun exercise: Some of the folks who just love to debunk all the supposed myths about the other guy and to tear that guy down could write a diary or two debunking (in part or whole) some positive myths about their own guy...if they are able to see them. I won't hold my breath, but it's possible.
- Login or register to post comments
)Those with short memories might need reminding that it was the GOP Congress of the 1990's that impeached a sitting president over a blowjob and a stain on a blue dress. To say that extra-marital affairs are now irrelevant to a candidate's fitness for office could be construed as a wee bit hypocritical.
- Login or register to post comments
)you must know that's not true, so why say it?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the proper answer is
1. "perjurious, false and misleading testimony"; and
--2. obstructed justice to "delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence" is the proper response.
"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I actually have had a bad weekend... you have a gift for understatement.
As for your points...
1. "perjurious, false and misleading testimony"...about oral sex.
2. obstructed justice to "delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence" of oral sex.
Y'all can pretty this up as much as you want, but there's a reason the Starr Report reads like a bad Danielle Steele novel*- the GOP decided to impeach a president over consensual oral sex. Please don't whine about John McCain's marital failures being used against him. The GOP opened this Pandora's box, and the GOP gets to live with the repercussions of that choice.
* Yes, I know that's redundant.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yeah, which means what you said was untrue.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )especially regarding the media's incentives for keeping the race close. Hopefully the debates and some real reporting activity in the next few months will lift the veil.
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
)...for coming up with the worst and stupidest justification for opposing McCain that I have yet seen.
And I say that as one who desperately hopes (but without much confidence) that Obama will beat the pants off McCain come November.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- Login or register to post comments
)It isn't like I accused McCain of being celebrity or anything like that.
I probably would have dumped Carol for Cindy too. I'm not made of stone. I just don't go around telling people that I have: LINK
That doesn't sound like the McCain who dumped his disabled wife for a hottie or the McCain who got into flight school after graduating in the bottom 1% of his naval academy class or the McCain who flip flopped on all his Maverick positions once it was convenient to do so. People should know the real McCain.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Might have been better for you if you--and those with similar plans to dwell on his martial history--had waited. Inoculation and all that, you know.
Obama doesn't have any tame judges waiting to kneecap *this* opponent, I'm afraid.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I saw the Rich article and thought it was worth a diary. I added the lawsuit gobbledygook since it sums up the real McCain that Rich was talking about.
Angry John only cares about Angry John. Your party seems to have forgotten how much you guys hated McCain for his Maverick stances but I haven't. McCain has always been about what is best for McCain. If your party wants to pretend you loved McMaverick when he was pissing you guys off so he could grab the spotlight then you will probably get away with it, just not around here.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It is worth noting that this guy's, uhm, character, or at the least his worldview, is seriously aslant. I love that he simply couldn't answer the question last night regarding what constituted 'rich' -- after all, he's worked very few days in his life, and his wife, well, she's the one who buys and houses and keeps them rolling....
Five million, he said. I'm sure, to him, that's about right.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Good G-d, Harley - if you think that line is going to work for your side, then...well...I just don't know what to say.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The larger notion is that McCain has a media-fed image that is not an accurate reflection of who the man is. This has nothing to do with his first marriage or his trophy wife or his five hundred dollar shoes. Heck. That would be like calling someone a celebrity.
It is, I think, more important to be accurate about his various poses over the years, whether it be re the war in Iraq or Katrina or even the recent crisis in Georgia. The personal stuff is fun to blog about, but hardly a 'line' that requires following.
Tho' I do believe his age and his temperament are valid issues. The latter more than the former.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"It is more important to be accurate." Exactly!
That is why Obama is such an obvious target for disclosure on a whole of host of topics and relationships, er complete the bio.
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )