McCain Violated the Rules: That's Cheating
The McCain camp (along with every conservative blogger/commentator) is absolutely indignant at the suggestion that McCain may have cheated at the Saddleback forum on Saturday. As the New York Times reports, McCain was not in the "cone of silence" that he was supposed to be in (and which Rick Warren repeatedly assured the audience he was) during Barack Obama's questioning. He was actually en route in his motorcade for the first half of Obama's questioning and in a green room (apparently with his staff) for the second half.
The McCain campaign insists that he did not cheat and it outraged at the very suggestion of any impropriety. In a classic non-sequitur (and one that represents a microcosm of the entire campaign to this point), the McCain campaign issued a statement saying: “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.” Apparently POWs are, by definition, incapable of cheating on anything (something that would likely come as news to McCain's first wife).
In fact, the McCain camp is so incensed by this allegation that it cranked out an angry missive to NBC News complaining about the fact that Andrea Mitchell even mentioned the issue at all (which is ironic given that Mitchell attributed the allegation to Obama staffers and made it sound like it was just sour grapes).
So what to make of all this? First, and this really goes without saying, this would be a MUCH bigger deal if the situation was reversed. Imagine how Republicans and their talk-radio apparatchiks would react if Obama had violated the pre-established rules of a forum like this and been in a position to either watch McCain's performance or have members of his staff feed him information. And to make the comparison comparable, imagine this forum was hosted by Moveon.org and conducted in front of an audience of liberal activists (I realize this is difficult to imagine because no Republican candidate would ever agree to attend such an event, but bear with me). If the roles had been reversed here, there would be considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects and, suffice it to say, they would not simply accept Obama's "word" that no cheating had occurred.
But let's put aside the hypotheticals for a moment and talk about what actually happened here. McCain demands that we all take him at his word that he didn't cheat. But it's not just about him and his personal honor. McCain is surrounded by a team of campaign staff at all times, many of whom are Karl Rove proteges who--as the campaign has already demonstrated--are willing to do or say just about anything to win. Even if McCain himself was not watching or listening to Obama's performance as he rode to the event, surely some members of his staff were. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they weren't. So what we're really being asked to believe here is that none of the campaign staff who were listening to Obama's performance in any way communicated what they'd heard to the candidate himself, despite the fact that they had access to him the entire time. Now I supposed that's possible, but it's certainly hard to believe.
And the bottom line is that we really shouldn't be put in the position of having to make that call. The way the Saddleback forum was set up, with one candidate going before the other and being subjected to the same questions, the other candidate really had to be in genuine isolation for the event to be at all fair. That's why Rick Warren set up the rules the way he did and asked that McCain wait in a "cone of silence." McCain completely disregarded the rules by arriving late. As with all situations in which someone disregards the rules, the presumption goes against the violator. It's ridiculous for the McCain campaign to cry foul when they violated the rules. If you don't want to be accused of cheating, don't cheat.
The McCain campaign insists that he did not cheat and it outraged at the very suggestion of any impropriety. In a classic non-sequitur (and one that represents a microcosm of the entire campaign to this point), the McCain campaign issued a statement saying: “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.” Apparently POWs are, by definition, incapable of cheating on anything (something that would likely come as news to McCain's first wife).
In fact, the McCain camp is so incensed by this allegation that it cranked out an angry missive to NBC News complaining about the fact that Andrea Mitchell even mentioned the issue at all (which is ironic given that Mitchell attributed the allegation to Obama staffers and made it sound like it was just sour grapes).
So what to make of all this? First, and this really goes without saying, this would be a MUCH bigger deal if the situation was reversed. Imagine how Republicans and their talk-radio apparatchiks would react if Obama had violated the pre-established rules of a forum like this and been in a position to either watch McCain's performance or have members of his staff feed him information. And to make the comparison comparable, imagine this forum was hosted by Moveon.org and conducted in front of an audience of liberal activists (I realize this is difficult to imagine because no Republican candidate would ever agree to attend such an event, but bear with me). If the roles had been reversed here, there would be considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects and, suffice it to say, they would not simply accept Obama's "word" that no cheating had occurred.
But let's put aside the hypotheticals for a moment and talk about what actually happened here. McCain demands that we all take him at his word that he didn't cheat. But it's not just about him and his personal honor. McCain is surrounded by a team of campaign staff at all times, many of whom are Karl Rove proteges who--as the campaign has already demonstrated--are willing to do or say just about anything to win. Even if McCain himself was not watching or listening to Obama's performance as he rode to the event, surely some members of his staff were. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they weren't. So what we're really being asked to believe here is that none of the campaign staff who were listening to Obama's performance in any way communicated what they'd heard to the candidate himself, despite the fact that they had access to him the entire time. Now I supposed that's possible, but it's certainly hard to believe.
And the bottom line is that we really shouldn't be put in the position of having to make that call. The way the Saddleback forum was set up, with one candidate going before the other and being subjected to the same questions, the other candidate really had to be in genuine isolation for the event to be at all fair. That's why Rick Warren set up the rules the way he did and asked that McCain wait in a "cone of silence." McCain completely disregarded the rules by arriving late. As with all situations in which someone disregards the rules, the presumption goes against the violator. It's ridiculous for the McCain campaign to cry foul when they violated the rules. If you don't want to be accused of cheating, don't cheat.
posted by A.L. at 8:28 AM
8 Comments:
all true enough.
It's always interesting, however, to see which element of a given encounter - the Saddleback interviews - becomes the story. In this instance, it's the 'cone of silence', in no small part because the McCain campaign got its undies in a twist about it.
And maybe wisely so, because at the end of the day, I suspect that the violation of the 'cone of silence' will be less costly to them than would, say, their candidate's cooption of the writing of Alexander Solzhenitsyn into his personal biography.
This 'cross in the sand' story McCain has taken to liking to tell...As has been amply documented elsewhere, it ain't his. It's Solzhenitsyn's. Now, I suppose it's POSSIBLE that the same thing happened to McCain. It's possible his 'gook' prison guard was himself a fan of Solzhenitsyn. It's possible I've quizzed a New York cabbie about where the ducks go in the wintertime. We can't know all things. Even so, I think it would be a more troubling conversation for the McCain camp and the country and the press to be having right now, whether McCain is a flat-out shameless liar when it comes to his personal history, or whether (as I suspect) he is simply old and delusional and has kind of lost touch with the line that separates fiction and reality, and himself and others.
Kind of a cool line to keep in mind for, say, a President of the United States.
None of this is to say that the Press wouldn't find a way to cover for him on that count - how DARE we impugn the integrity of an apparently well-read POW! - but still, if I were the McCain people, I'd rather be talking about 'cone-gate' right now than 'cross-gate'.
The only way this can get any better for the McCain campaign is if Obama calls McCain's mother to complain.
...because his mother would sue his ass for a million $.
A.L. has the telling point here: the fact that those who undoubtedly prepped McCain for his performance listened in to Obama answer the questions -- and had the opportunity while they were still prepping McCain -- should have been divulged.
For the McCain Campaign to then scream "POW!" indicates a cover-up. Hopefully, McCain's attack on the story will help disseminate it -- they should have just let it die.
cMCain is actually out-victiming Hillary.
We hashed out the logical fallacy involved in the "POW card" earlier today, also placing it in context of Karen Hughes claiming that Americans werre "valuing life" after 9/11, thereby clamoring for the demise of Roe.
It's just how these people argue,
Did McCain cheat, or did he lie (which would also involve Rick Warren) about being in the "cone"?
The second is certainly true.
I can't stand John McCain, so I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that he would cheat. However, the fact that Rick Warren sort of snickered every time that he said McCain was in a cone of silence led me to think that he wasn't and that he was just back stage. Wasn't "cone of silence" an ongoing gag on Get Smart?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home