Lost in the debate over today's news stories (The Washington Post had a follow-up that essentially matched the key details in the Times story) regarding John McCain's relationship with a lobbyist -- did he? didn't he? -- is the fact that during his press conference McCain handed the Democrats a weapon for the fall campaign.
McCain's public persona is based on three distinct but intertwined characterization: He's a war hero; a -- dear Lord how tiresome has this descriptive become -- "maverick" willing to go against his party's orthodoxy to stay true to his own beliefs; and a fighter against special interests with the vehemence that can only come from the born-again.
It's a powerful triple-threat for McCain and the Democrats' challenge (can we go ahead and say Obama's?) is to demolish or at least undercut those pillars.
As I note over at RobertEmmet, McCain presented the Democrats with a powerful soundbite when he told reporters today that he has many friends who are Washington lobbyists. You can expect to see that over and over again this fall in commercials questioning his ability to bring change to Washington if he's buddying around with hordes of special interest lobbyists.
This week's New Republic has a devastating Jonathan Chait cover story that lays out a roadmap to dismantling the true-to-beliefs image. From TNR:
The prevalent view of McCain is that he is a generally conservative figure with a few maverick stances and an unwavering authenticity. ... Actually, this assessment gets McCain almost totally backward. He has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes.
It's a powerful indictment and worth a read.
Will the Democrats manage this political jujitsu (turning his perceived strength into weakness)? Time will tell. But if they do, the seeds are here.
Did I miss something? Which candidate was it that wrote the story in the Washington Post? And, practically speaking, no candidate ever wants to do their own sliming, that's what 527's are for.
His wife Cindy also said she was disappointed with the newspaper. "More importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America. He's a man of great character," Cindy McCain said.
And then there is this:
Dan Nowicki, Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 1, 2007 10:33 AM
CHAPTER V: ARIZONA, THE EARLY YEARS
McCain recalls that both he and Cindy initially misled each other about their ages. McCain made himself a little younger, and Cindy made herself a little older. They found out their real ages when the local paper published them. McCain was 43, Cindy 25.
McCain needed a divorce from Carol, his wife of 14 years from whom he was separated. After McCain's dramatic homecoming from Vietnam, the couple grew apart. Their marriage began disintegrating while McCain was stationed in Jacksonville. McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs.
In February 1980, less than a year after he met Cindy, McCain petitioned a Florida court to dissolve his marriage to Carol, calling the union "irretrievably broken."
Cindy's money came from her family business. Her father, Jim Hensley, owned a Phoenix Anheuser-Busch distributorship that had made him a multimillionaire. He gave his new son-in-law a job as vice president of public relations, but, really, McCain was just biding his time until the right political opportunity came up.
I guess extramarital affairs and ADULTRY are items that would not disappoint his family or the people of America.
Did Johnny lie about his age to get a little Nooky?
It's "reassuring" to know that we may get yet another Republican president who enables the CORRUPT NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH & "corporate welfare queens".
Look, people! stop listening to pund-idiots on TV, take a PRACTICAL look at the campaign MESS and vote for somebody with smarts, will, drive to get the job done. Who isn't in EVER LOBBYISTS POCKET.
If only the same argument would hold up in a court of law.
Trouble is, it was a war based on a great big lie. Not unlike the one we are in at present. (Nearly 3 million Vietnamese paid for that crime, and nearly 60 thousand of my brothers have their names on a long-black wall over in DC.)
Also, you seem to have missed the point here. "I was a war criminal" were words that McCain uttered on "60 Minutes", back in 1997, not Hanoi.
Incidentally, I was an 11Bravo10, outside of Bien Hoa in 1970.
Perhaps you may already know that 11B10 is an Army designation for "light weapons, infantry",
but thanks for your concise tutorial on what war is all about.
By the time 1973 came around more officers trained at the service Academies resigned at the end of their tours than otherwise.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is precisely the same circumstances that we face today with West Point officers, because of the debacle in Iraq.
Sometimes, heroic needs to be measured in the full time of history. Capt. McCain did as ordered, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts he would have quit the squadron had he not been captured.
I haven't seen any SAT scores, but I would think it safe to say that the "average" Navy alum would rank very high against the "average" U.S college grad in every academic category, let alone other standards of character and fitness.
Full disclosure: I support Obama for prez!
"Blow up thousands of photos of McCain hugging Bush and make them into posters.
Issue one to every person at the Democratic National Convention.
Talk about a photo op!"
Dropping napalm on innocent men, women and children from an A-4 Skyhawk, without ever hearing their screams or seeing their faces makes him a "war hero"?
Here is an earlier assessment of what he really did over the countryside of Vietnam. These are McCain's own words from a 1997 "60 Minutes" segment:
"I am a war criminal," I bombed innocent women and children."
And yet he smiles agreeably as he hears himself described as a "war hero" as he arrives at rallies in a bus marked "No Surrender."
Are you really suggesting McCain's words were not brought forward under severe duress and torture? I have a hard time believing you have the skills to use a computer but would also be capable of such a childish suggestion.
Too bad "war hero" has become so "tiresome" for you and Mr. Schlesinger. Of course, that only goes to show how priveleged of a life you have been fortunate enough to lead, due in no small part to the heroic sacrifices of Mr. McCain and others.
Bullshit. Others? Yes, If they served in WWII. My father served with the 82nd Airborne in all the Arfican and European theatres. I'm grateful to him and others of his generation. Their sacrifices did enable my present liberty. But McCain? No. Vietnam had nothing to do with threats to our life and liberty in this country. To suggest otherwise is to engage in revisionist history.
"Well, there they go again - ANOTHER K-street corporate welfare enabler...."
Oh, but wait....wait a minute...better wait until Obama cinches it, seeing as Clinton of the First has many many tentacles embedded into that "welfare system"....
Can you say "Nuclear"? I KNEW you could:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/mark-penn-tied-to-controv_n_86722.html
Blow up thousands of photos of McCain hugging Bush and make them into posters.
Issue one to every person at the Democratic National Convention.
Talk about a photo op!