« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
McCain is Denying Altercation
Multiple media outlets are reporting that Sen. McCain is denying the accounts of Sen. Cochran regarding an altercation that occurred. Sen. Cochran stated the altercation occurred on a diplomatic endeavor between the U.S. and the Nicaraguan Sandanistas in 1987.
Sen. McCain stated: "I think that information…it's just -- it's simply not true."
This is one of those defining moments of a campaign. That Sen. McCain may or may not have lost his temper during this trip is not the issue. People lose their temper sometimes. While not the most dignified story, it is not something that would be too terribly troubling on its own [of course, coupled with multiple other instances of him losing his temper is another story].
However, categorically denying that the alleged event occurred should be an automatic disqualifier if it is proven to have happened. If this event did, in fact, occur; and Sen. McCain is denying that it happened--then he is unfit to be president of the United States.
When will these politicians learn that it is never the original event, but rather, lying about it after the fact, that leads to their downfall.
Comments (3)
I disagree about how important this could become.
Lying can cost you an election if it's about something people care about. Otherwise, no.
Tuzla was fatal to Hillary in that it provided visual proof of what so many already suspected: that she was either too untrustworthy or too delusional to lead.
Bush Sr.'s flip-flop after saying, "Read my lips: no new taxes" resonated not because it was a lie, but because people hate seeing their taxes go up.
Do Americans care whether McCain manhandled a leftist revolutionary back in 1987?
In some circles, his stock will rise. Shows he's feisty.
And where exactly is the lie?
Sen. Cochran's anecdote is sketchy at best.
He doesn't know whom McCain was squabbling with, or over what. And they never came to actual blows.
So if McCain says, "I think ... it's simply not true," he could be saying quite honestly that he recalls no physical confrontation occurring during that tense visit two decades ago.
American voters will cut him slack on this.
Hell, I think he's an erratic, thin-skinned bastard -- but I'm willing to cut him slack on this too.
Fortunately, there are a few other things -- like his domestic and foreign policies -- that will combine to cost McCain the election.
July 2, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
acanuck, why are you willing to cut him slack on this? Isn't president of the United States a "big person's job" type of job. I always thought that to be the case, didn't you?
July 3, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing I find interesting is that McCain has also denied ever saying he was not an expert in economics, and needed to educate himself more on this subject. The denial occurred while being interviewed by Robin Roberts on Good Morning America a few mornings ago. He seemed to really surprise her by saying he'd never made such a statement. Yet there's video of him saying this very thing on a couple of occasions. Tim Russert forced him to acknowledge this comment not long ago on Meet The Press, I believe.
His denial is as clear and verifiable a 'mis-statement' as the one Hillary made about her landing in Bosnia. It makes me suspect there is a pattern here. I wonder why this isn't getting more press!
July 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment