McCain keeps shooting off his mouth!


How the West Wing might be lost: Last night, John McCain shot off his mouth for Piers Morgan.

On MSNBC, it’s conventional to praise Saint McCain for having been less racist than Romney back in 2008. That’s a bit of a reinvention. In 2008, that pretty much isn't the way leading liberals saw things.

Whatevger! But even as this reinvention occurs, McCain is all over TV, saying dumb shit like this:
MORGAN (10/25/12): Let's turn to an interview that Barack Obama has given to Rolling Stone magazine and there's been some leaks from this in which the president effectively calls Mitt Romney, and he uses this word, a bull-shitter. Is that dignified for the president of the United States to use that term about his rival?

MCCAIN: Of course not. And it's not presidential to deride and be sarcastic about his opponent in the debates. You know, he talked about bayonets and horses as if bayonets are obsolete. The Marines train with bayonets in combat zones. They're required to carry them. And of course, talking about aircraft carriers, the president, as far as we can tell, has been on an aircraft carrier once when it was tied up to the pier and they had a charity basketball game.

He's never been on a submarine and he calls our Navy personnel, who are in the medical business, who are called corpsmen, calls them corpse men. I don't know if he was talking to a zombie or not but the fact is that the president shouldn't be bragging about his background and expertise on military matters.
On MSNBC, this guy routinely gets praised.

In fact, Obama did not “talk about bayonets and horses as if bayonets are obsolete.” He simply said we now use fewer bayonets and horses. And that angry-man talk about carriers and submarines is really talk for the ages.

Earlier, McCain sounded off against Colin Powell, who had just endorsed Obama. (“I'm not angry about it. I just wish that he wouldn't call himself a Republican.”) But for our money, McCain’s most interesting statements last night concerned, what else, Benghazi:
MCCAIN: Look, there were warnings, there was an attack on the consulate in August, there was one in November. There was, there was clearly requests by our ambassador, not Facebook posting, but by our ambassador for better protection. His last message was about that. His diary that was found not by our people but by CNN reporter talked about his concerns.

I think it's a very legitimate question. Why didn't we do something about it? And if we knew that there was danger, why didn't we have forces on alert in case something that would happen and then why did they send out our ambassador to the U.N., why did the president go on these programs and speak to the U.N. and continue to claim that it was a hateful video that triggered a spontaneous demonstration?

You can't assume anything, but either a cover-up or colossal incompetence which is absolutely ridiculous and outrageous.
McCain’s question about security preparation is perfectly legitimate. Obama ducked this topic at the town hall debate.

But then, McCain made a blatant misstatement about Susan Rice and about Obama’s U.N. address. He misrepresented what Rice said, flatly misstated regarding Obama.

In his speech at the U.N., Obama discussed Benghazi at some length, mainly to praise Chris Stevens. But he offered no statement about what had caused the attack.

McCain's statement last night was untrue. When he spoke at the U.N., Obama didn’t “continue to claim that it was a hateful video that triggered a spontaneous demonstration.”

Obama said nothing of the kind. But so what? Last night on CNN, this was Morgan’s response to McCain: "Senator McCain, as always, provocative stuff. Thank you very much for joining me."

The misstatements aimed at Rice and Obama are part of the drive to take the White House. At Media Matters, you only hear about these slanders if they get delivered on Fox.

On MSNBC, you never hear about this topic at all. Sometimes, though, McCain gets praised for his deportment in 2008.

The wild horse of the airwaves: McCain has been at this for more than a month. For one example out of many, here he was in late September with the hapless Anderson Cooper.

McCain was spilling with snark:
MCCAIN (9/28/12): A casual observer, a first year cadet at West Point will tell you that that kind of attack is not a spontaneous demonstration. “Here, darling, let's go to a demonstration, bring the mortars.” This is, this is—

It’s insane that they would somehow believe that could be the result of a spontaneous demonstration.

And second of all, they've got it all wrong when they blame the video. It's not the video. It is the people, the Islamists, radical Islamists, that are pushing this video throughout media in the Middle East to crank up the anti-moderate, anti-pro-democracy force.

COOPER: There was reporting yesterday from Fran Townsend at CNN with sources and also a writer for the Daily Beast who said that intelligence sources he had talked to had said that in the intelligence community, there was within the first 24 hours were saying this was a terrorist attack, had even some people identified. Have you heard that? Can you comment on that? And if that is the case, why does the information that the intelligence community has not something that the administration is saying publicly?

MCCAIN: I don't know. But it doesn't take intelligence information to watch an operation take place with heavy weapons, mortars— That is not then a spontaneous demonstration. This is why it's reprehensible for our ambassador to the U.N. to go on all the networks and say that.
Except Rice didn’t “go on all the networks” and say that the fatal attack in Benghazi “was the result of a spontaneous demonstration.” According to Rice, “extremists” armed with “heavy weapons” came to the scene of a demonstration and “hijacked” ongoing events.

It now seems there was no demonstration. But Rice never said that the fatal attacks were “the result of a demonstration.” Second point: In real time, the New York Times reported that these extremists said, even as the attack was unfolding, that it was a reaction to the video. The Times reconfirmed that reporting last week.

Cooper didn’t seem to know these things then, doesn’t seem to know these things now. But so what? McCain has played the fool all over TV in the past month—and he will be permitted to do so right through Election Day.

On The One True Channel, the children like to recall the way McCain told that old lady in 2008 that Obama wasn’t an Arab. They seem to have no idea what the saint is doing now.


  1. Bob, "straight-shooting maverick" might have been the working definition for McCain in 2000 or 2004.

    But I think by 2008, a good chunk of America woke up to the fact that he was a doddering old man who didn't have the sense to pick a better running mate than Sarah Palin.

    If I were with the Obama campaign, I would do all I could to encourage the Romney campaign to keep putting McCain -- and especially Sununu -- before the TV cameras.

    It only reminds the 2008 Obama voters how wise they were.

    1. Spot on in your assessment. I use to like John McCain. Particularly because I knew Coulter and Limbaugh hated him. He was not hijacked by the neocons and was a straight shooter. Then came the 2008 campaign. John McCain's campaign theme was "country first." He listened to his campaign team, Steve Schmitt, Rick Davis and Mark Salter. Smart guys. But like the saying goes, smart people can make really dumb choices. They picked a woefully inept & embarrassing ideologue to be a 72 year old man's heartbeat away from the highest office in the land. That's not "country first." You're right. McCain is old and out of touch. He is a liability to his party. Sununu..... that old frog just dreams of be appointed as ambassador to Vatican City. That really is what he wants. Watch him in action. He wants it so bad he can taste it.

    2. John McCain was never a "Straight shooter." About the best that can correctly be said of him is that he's better than the average Republican. That's a frighteningly low bar.

  2. Oh, and yes, McCain's gentle upbraiding of the woman at the 2008 campaign "town hall" was one of the few bright moments of the entire 2008 campaign, regardless of which side of the political fence you stand on.

  3. Quaker in a BasementOctober 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM

    The same group that later claimed responsibility for the attack had earlier attacked diplomatic outposts of other countries. Why? To protest media depictions of Islam they deemed insulting!

    But never mind. I'm sure the attackers are far more interested in choosing the optimal timing to offend American sensibilities than they are about their own culture.

    1. Yes, it's ludicrous to suggest that 9/11 might have any special significance to islamists.

  4. [from the Phoenix New times]
    "Haunted by Spirits

    John McCain derived his wealth from his marriage to Cindy Hensley McCain, whose father started his road to riches as a bootlegger. As a politician, the senator has remained beholden to the liquor industry and the family business. The senator's wife and -- more important -- his father-in-law, James Willis Hensley, are very wealthy people.

    Like his father and grandfather before him, McCain was a career Navy officer. His earning power and his inheritance were modest. At its peak, his pay as a captain was about $45,000.

    But he retired from the military in 1980, divorced his first wife, wed Arizona native Cindy Lou Hensley and moved here to plunge into the world of politics. His first job in Arizona was as a public affairs agent for Hensley & Company, one of the nation's largest beer distributors. He was paid $50,000 in 1982 to travel the state, touting the company's wares. But he was promoting himself as much as he was Budweiser beer. A better job description might have been "candidate."

    In 1982, Cindy drew more than $700,000 in salary and bonuses from Hensley-related enterprises as her husband was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in his first political campaign.

    Today, McCain is ranked the 26th wealthiest member of Congress by Roll Call magazine. There are 535 members in the House and Senate.

    From Day 1, Hensley money has enabled McCain to be a full-time politician, free from financial concerns.

    This story examines the roots of the Hensley fortune and John McCain's implacable bond to the liquor industry -- how it has enriched him personally and as a politician, and how those ties have dictated his actions on questions of public policy.

    John McCain's political allegiances to liquor purveyors and his father-in-law's interests are subtle. That narrative is marked by a pattern of patronage.

    The Hensley saga, meanwhile, swirls with bygone accounts of illicit booze, gambling, horse racing, deceit and crime. James Hensley embarked on his road to riches as a bootlegger."

    McCain - bagman and shill for special interests then and now.

  5. Harry Truman in regards to something the Republicans wanted, said, "That's bullshit!" Obama could do worse than be like HT. Would love to see him holding a newspaper the day after the election that says Romney Defeats Obama, knowing he's won.

    The clowns on the right need another 4 years of Obama or who else will they pick on, while the MSNBC clowns need him to lose so they can gripe about Romney for a while and keep their precious jobs.

  6. "Susan Rice told the truth! Except for the false part of what she said!"

    1. ABL - you seem obsessed with this so-called point. Do you know the difference between a person consciously making a statement that she knows is false, and making a staement and qualifying it by saying that it is subject to future information being obtained, shortly after something happened in an obscure part of the world, where getting precise info is difficult? Is everything only black or white for you? What is the point you are trying to make that is so important? Do you consider the possibility that the whole issue about misstatements has been cynically injected by pro-Romney factions and is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion?

      If I am mistaken in concluding that you are being irrational over this, can you show that the contrary is the case?

      AC / MA

    2. ABL . . . A Born Liar?

    3. How can an administration providing false information about an incident where an ambassador is killed not be a story? How is it any kind of defense to sy that part of her statements were true?

    4. ABL, evidently you are serious, and kind of dense. When someone says, this is what we think happened, but are not sure (particularly here where she was simply passing on the intelligence data that was being provided), and it later is determined that what we think happened wasn't exactly the case, it doesn't make sense to keep on harping about giving out false information. No false information was provided becasue she said she wasn't sure if it was true, and as far as I can tell was acting in good faith. TDH has explained this in pretty good detail, while the MSM seems to be mindlessly flogging things from your angle.

      Anyway, what's your point, that Romney should be elected?


    5. "ABL, evidently you are serious, and kind of dense."

      Kind of?

  7. "Susan Rice told the truth! Except for the false part of what she said!"

    Why didn't I say "knowingly false?"

    Because I want to preserve my reputation as a first-class bullshit artist, not a second-rate troll.

    1. Maybe I missed subtlety, if so sorry.


    2. Leave out motive. She provided false information and she was speaking for the administration.

    3. ABL, maybe not subtelty, but the opposite.


  8. Hey Bob, I don't know if you take time to read all the comments but if so thanks for the years of obvious hard work pumping out amazing amounts of information. Years ago you helped me learn how to spot bad journalism to the point that I can pretty much avoid it in the first place. What I would appreciate is more attention to good journalism as I don't have the time to search it out. Just a suggestion,Thanks

  9. Who cares whether there was a peaceful gathering around the consulate beforehand or not ?! The place was destroyed, U.S. lives were lost ! No motive to lie, every reason to be as up front as possible, respecting national security considerations, of course. I just heard Congressman Steve Scalise down here lying his ass off about Cairo and Benghazi down here in N.O. on a two-bit weekly TV show. Had absolutely no idea of the 'timelines', putting out that the administration(the U.S. Embassy in Cairo) had apologized to terrorists and trampled the principle of free speech in the bargain, by condemning/objecting to the YouTube video at all....So odious, all these holier-than-thou, 'gotcha' types...up to the highest level of the Republic(Sic!)Party !

  10. BWho cares whether there was a peaceful gathering around the consulate beforehand or not ?! The place was destroyed, U.S. lives were lost !"

    Bingo! And the only ones who "care" are the junkies on botth sides, the right-wing with a new lie for their echo chamber, and the lefties who amplify it by even dignifying it with a ridiculous response that Rice was merely Mortimer Snerd to the CIA's Edgar Bergen.