Straight talk?

Josh Marshall: "There's no way of getting around the fact that McCain routinely, almost constantly, issues categorical denials that are demonstrably false."

More here. ("He can't put this one behind him simply by asserting that he's JOHN MCCAIN, a living embodiment of honor and integrity, and so we all have to trust him.")

For me, these dissembling denials of side-issues are a much bigger problem than vague, anonymous allegations in a liberal newspaper that some people thought he was maybe having an affair. ... Look, McCain's chance of winning over centrist voters like myself is largely premised on his reputation for "straight talk." If that's just another hollow brand, then what's left?

P.S. On the other hand, maybe some swing voters will vote for McCain just to spite the Times. Though I doubt it. It's February. The anger against the newspaper can't possibly burn white-hot for 8 1/2 months, can it? On the other hand, 8 1/2 months is plenty of time for McCain's "straight talk" bubble to either solidify or be popped. So I still think the false denials are the bigger problem. (It's always the cover-up...)

Comments

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I, for one, was dismayed at the "romantic relationship" allegations made in the NY Times article, specifically because there was no proof of this kind of relationship, just third-hand observations from people who suspected it. However, the fact that McCain appears to have blatantly lied - repeatedly - about his meetings with Paxson will eventually overshadow the NY Times poor judgment on the "romance" angle it took.

Whatever traction he may gain with conservatives over being attacked by the Times, he will lose infinitely more independent and moderate supporters over his inability to talk the "straight talk" he is so fond of promoting. If McCain gets the nomination, the conservatives have nowhere else to go. The moderates and independents do.

[thebeef]

Brendan,

I can't disagree with you that McCain's reputation for "straight talk" helps him draw independent voters and that some of his statements tarnish that reputation. For instance, when he claimed he recieves no money from special interests, he tarnished his "straight talk" rep.

However, I would hope in the coming election that these fluff issues, which the media love (and bloggers love to follow up on and beat to death) will remain peripheral to the far more important subject of substance. I would hope that an independent voter, finding himself torn between Obama and McCain, would first look at issues like, say, the economy, before getting side-tracked by admitted "side-issues."

[Mad Max, Esquire]

thebeef-

I don't believe Obama is "Mr. Clean," and I'm sure some dirt will stick to him before the general election. The problem McCain has, though, is that he appears to be towing the Bush line 100%. Having questionable relationships with lobbyists only reinforces that impression (remember Cheney's secret energy committee that was supposedly composed of Enron, Halliburton,etc).

McCain running on the "straight talk" express is like Hillary running as the only person who can push through healthcare reform. There is ample evidence that undermines the credibility for both of them on these matters.

[Condor]

Two things:
1. McCain's categorical denial is opening himself up for a serious credibility crash should any evidence surface.

2. Everyone should read the response from the NYTimes editors and writers to readers' questions about this story. I am a bit of a fan of McCain myself, and I was pretty much totally convinced from the response that the article was in the public interest.

[thebeef]

Hopefully, Mad Max and Condor, the rumor and gossip merchants and the fluff won't decide this election. Hopefully, the issues will.

And I think that the issues will win the day. Hillary cannot attack Obama's uber-liberal policies because she's running in the democratic primary. Just wait until the general election, however, when Obama will face a candidate who will relentlessly attack him on his policy positions, which are disturbingly left wing.

Wait until Obama has to face a candidate who actually has a record of reaching over across the aisle, something Obama has only talked. about

Of the two candidates, who breaks with their party line more often in an attempt to reach a compromise? Which candidate was a part of the Gang of 14, and which candidate was not?

Obama's talk of uniting the country cannot compare with McCain's record.

Obama's desire for "kum-ba-ya" diplomacy, in which the United States engages with dictatorial regimes that prey on their own populations and threaten their neigbors, will not sit well with ordinary Americans. Obama's desire to spend our economy into the tank, while nontheless doubling the tax on capital gains, should frighten anyone who is concerned about the direction of our economy.

In the end, when the American people look at the issues, they'll see Obama for what he is: A hard left partisan who is par-for-the-course of our democratic controlled Congress, which has a lower approval rating than the President.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

John McCain has to reach across the aisle because he can't get his own party to support his positions. How is he going to succeed as President when he is a "maverick" who can't rely on his own party when push comes to shove? Jimmy Carter was a maverick, and look how that turned out.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Regarding the "kum-ba-ya" diplomacy remark, I seem to recall Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 meeting with dictators all of the time. If you want to cut off dictatorial leaders who prey on their own populations, I suggest all Presidents avoid meeting with Putin, Musharraf, the Saudi Royals, etc, etc, etc.

[Dave]

I agree with Brendan, in that these "dissembling denials" are troubling, and it bothers me that McCain seems to have boxed himself into a corner with his categorical denial of everything the NY Times story reported. Such a response inevitably invites the kind of "parsing" from the unsigned "Muckraker" talking points memo.

As a McCain supporter and admirer, I've always been frustrated by his unwillingness to equivocate, simply because it invites such carping, such scrutiny. In this sense, his greatest strength also becomes his most significant liability. He's shown great shrewdness and wisdom in his political career, but deep down McCain has never been a very good politician.

I am more apt to forgive his "misrecollections" yesterday - his pretty clear error regarding having talked personally to Paxson, as well as those regarding his interactions with the Times over this story. Maybe this is because I hold him in such high regard: it's never easy to find fallibility in your heroes.

But I also think the substance of his response was to attack the innuendo that he had had a sexual relationship with a lobbyist - or at least an inappropriate, "romantic" relationship. And the direct allegation that this relationship influenced his decisions as chair of the Commerce committee.

Bearing this in mind, unless there is some additional evidence supporting these allegations, the Times story should never have been published in the first place; and I think his response to such an irresponsible piece is an adequate one. Given his record of public service, I'm certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The scrutiny McCain faces is appropriate, and will definitely grow in the coming weeks and months. That comes with the territory of running for President. McCain can handle it: he has served his entire life in the public arena. The rest of us would all do well to remember that it is not the critic who counts.

[Andrew]

Dave, when is one's greatest strength not also one's most significant liability?

In any case, I'm amused that most of you are now waking up after having swallowed the blue pill. Why do you think so many conservatives have disliked McCain so much over the years? It's precisely because he gets the media's adulation for his "Straight Talk Express" and being above the fray when it comes to special interests, when in fact everyone who takes even a second look quickly sees that he's no different than any other elected official in these regards.

I agree that it's an interesting question as to just how many independents and Democrats will wake up to this realization and when. I think some will come around to the truth before Election Day, but many more will figure everything out some time into McCain's first term and become as disenchanted with him as the Coulter, Ingraham, and Limbaughs of the world have been.

Now the media adoration bubble is beginning to burst, and while for a lot of voters McCain's image and popularity is cemented, for the political junkies among us, there is still time for a reconsideration of McCain's appeal. So for all of you folks who have fawned over McCain in the past and are now getting a little worried you've been sold a false bill of goods, let me recap the only bullets you need to know about the man:

-- He's a strong conservative, but is driven by personal conviction over political ideology and therefore is liable to alienate those who'd normally be his most crucial and strong allies.
-- He's a tad more honest than most politicians (i.e., he's a horrible dissembler), but the flip side of that is he'll get caught making ridiculous statements in his attempts to sound as straighforward as possible.
-- He's prone to having a temper and holding grudges, but for the most part is very fair with colleagues of all ideological stripes.

What it all boils down to for Republicans is that Romney was the better, more reliable conservative candidate, but if you ignore the tendency of McCain to poke you in the eye and piss you off, he'll end up doing more for your cause in the long run because of his ability to get the media and independents to buy his shtick. For everyone else not in the GOP camp, well, let's just say I was hoping the blue pill would remain in effect at least until after Election Day, but kudos to you if you've decided to discover the truth sooner.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I could take McCain mis-remembering meeting with Paxson and his lobbyists if it weren't for the fact that he gave a deposition in 2002 saying he did meet with Paxson and his lobbyists in 1999. You would think if you gave sworn testimony three years after the fact that you would 1) remember before you said the exact opposite to the press or 2) would at least hedge and say something like "I meet with all kinds of groups and people, but I have never participated in quid quo pro for anyone" or something to that effect. When you use absolutes like McCain does, you open yourself up for these kinds of embarrassments.

[JD]

The anger against the newspaper can't possibly burn white-hot for 8 1/2 months, can it?

Oh yes it can. Remember, this is the New York Times we're talking about. Its war on conservatives has been going on for years. Its war on John McCain has just begun.

[kcatnd]

Oh no it can't!

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Hillary Clinton is officially off her rocker. She was all Miss Nice-Nice during the debate. Now she is screaming like a banshee about a mailing Barack Obama has put out in Ohio....weeks ago. Before Super Tuesday....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSuhIaTHU

C'mon, Hillary. This is all a big f-ing act, isn't it? Is this what you really wanted to do during the debate? You would have done it, too, if you weren't booed for your ridiculous Xerox comment. I just feel bad for the Governor of Ohio who is standing back there nodding his head and thinking, "What the Hell is wrong with this woman?"

[Joe Mama]

For me, these dissembling denials of side-issues are a much bigger problem than vague, anonymous allegations in a liberal newspaper that some people thought he was maybe having an affair.

For me, McCain contradicting himself about the side-issue of whether or not he spoke with a lobbyist is a yawner, and Marshall's over-excited assertion "that McCain routinely, almost constantly, issues categorical denials that are demonstrably false" just isn't born out. What other "categorical denials" has McCain issued "that are demonstrably false"? Marshall evidently considers them too numerous to cite, or that they're common knowledge. Do tell.

Also, it matters much more to me that McCain's underlying activities that were the subject of the communications between himself and the lobbyists in question were in no way improper. He wrote a letter to the FCC urging them to get off their butts and make a decision one way or the other about this particular radio station. There is no evidence whatsoever that he suggested that the FCC should decide for the client of the lobbyists who approached him.

He can't put this one behind him simply by asserting that he's JOHN MCCAIN, a living embodiment of honor and integrity, and so we all have to trust him.

Why not? Obama has skated so far simply because he's BARACK OBAMA, the healer of souls and the new messiah.

[Condor]

Actually, Joe Mama has healed my soul, not to mention my body.