On MSNBC, Lester Holt touted McCain's "maverick reputation"
On the May 3 edition of MSNBC Live, host Lester Holt referred to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as "[a] senator with a maverick reputation." Media Matters for America has noted numerous instances in which media figures have uncritically called McCain a "maverick" or cited McCain's "maverick reputation" without noting the numerous instances in which McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment on issues large and small, as Media Matters has documented.
From the May 3 edition of MSNBC Live:
HOLT: Pete Wilson, we are out of time. But, Governor, thank you so much for spending time with us. It was good talking with you.
FORMER GOV. PETE WILSON (R-CA): Pleasure, Lester.
HOLT: A senator with a maverick reputation whose support of the war in Iraq may hurt him, but new polls say John McCain has taken the lead in some key states. What's at stake for Senator McCain? What does he need to say tonight? We're going to talk to his wife, Cindy, in just a moment.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
"I renounce the War and the US' torture."
He could start with that (and mean it) and go from there.
Well done MMFA!!!!!!!!
Another example of what I like to now call MCA*S Kissing.
I am thrilled to see tonight how Matthews will suck up to McCain, and Rudy. It will be a love fest on MSNBC tonight live from the Reagan Library.
Doris, The next President of the United States, Obama, and I thank you for not liking McCain. McCain is a war moner like Bush and Cheney
Duncan, is it your objective to disrupt the board? You have done this before so I would just like to get a final answer.
Now Doris, here I am agreeing with you and you say this is disruptive. How can that be disruptive when I agree with you?
You are a lost cause.
And what is Obama doing in your room? He should be out there being magical.
It is going to be a virtual orgy !
Good grief, considering the meaning of words, i.e maverick, is so vital here - how about a little correct term of your own, i.e touted?
Touted means for promote or talk up.....Holt merely mentions maverick as a description some attribute to McCain, there is no touting.
If there is a problem with maverick, then touted is equally incorrect verbiage.
You have a point, a better title would have been "On MSNBC Lester Holt mentioned McCains "maverick reputation".
HOLT: "A senator with a maverick reputation..."
I guess one could say that a reputation is just "what others are saying", but that looks like some touty-talk to me.BTW, I don't believe I've ever used the word "tout" in conversation.
I don't know what's dumber in this instance -- a lazy journalist's use of the term "maverick" to describe McCain or a lazy journalist's use of McCain's wife to report to America what McCain "needs to say." Could we get a slightly less biased individual to do that, please?
I look at why its not ok for "Liberals to get high" yet it was ok for Rush to get high and break the law. What about the old Rule of Law that Cons talk about when Clinton was in office? I guess Rule of Law only applies when people like Rush are not breaking the law and abusing medication.
Rush never took any illegal drugs and was never convicted of any crimes. He took legal pain killers for pain he was feeling. Your personal attacks are getting old. I know that you just do it because you can't debate Rush on the actual issues, but you really shouldn't just lie about him all the time.
Rhino, why should anyone debate a "comedian" as many of you call Rush.
And yes he doctor shopped for drugs, was caught and has to stay clean (that's a joke) for 18 months. It wasn't ok for Clinton to waffle with the word "is" and it's not ok to continue to lie about Rush's drug use.
"Your Personal attacks are getting old"?
Hmm , that is interesting considering Rush is the leader of personal attacks.
Calls Al Gore -"Algore"
John Kerry- Lurch
Tom Harkin- Dung Heap Harkin
Barack Obama- Barry Obama
Harry Reid- Dingy Harry
I am sure there are more
Did someone flag the Major's butt-kissing post?
Apparently so, as well as posts referring to the flagging of that post. This one may disappear soo....
Who's the Major?
Hopefully not another Metal Gear character.
sorry but youre wrong again. labels are subjective to their very core - a nappy headed ho to one person is a basketball star to another. if mccain is a maverick to, say, 40% of the population - that is pretty significant and he can therefore be TOUTED as a maverick.
Maverick has a specific definition, i.e., per Webster, 2 : an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party. Granted that is somewhat subjective. However, it is still incumbent on the user to provide some support for the assertion.
The "40%" argument is not a valid argument in this context. That is a fallacious argument known as argumentum ad populum, i.e., appeal to the masses. There are situations where statistics may provide valid support to an argument, e.g., if the assertion was that many people believe McCain is a maverick. However, that still does not provide proof he is a maverick.
Ok...obviously I wasn't responding to Lindenbully. More fallout from Col. Roy's latest booting.
Oh - and that first paragraph was a quote. My reply starts with the second paragraph.
you act like it popped up out of nowhere as a way to set him apart.
I'm not sure what I wrote that gives that impression. I was merely pointing out that the "40%" argument is fallacious.
However, for the record, I definitely viewed - emphasis on past tense - McCain as a maverick. In my opinion, he's abandoned that role. I would need a substantial argument to convince me he still is a maverick.
Alright...all of these deletions are making me look looney. Stop it! :D
If it helps at all, I think you're winning this debate...
Speaking of labels, did you hear Bush refer to himself as "The Commander Guy"? He and McCain should form a turrist fighting duo...Commander Guy and his faithful sidekick Maverick!
Because YOU demanded it, next ish -- Cobra Commander vs. Commander Guy in the mighty Marvel tradition... Excelsior!
It's Clobberin' Time!
Avengers assemble!!
CROM!
Teen Titans GO!
Umm, ahhh, Shazam?
Mjolnir!
Congratualtions NERZOG! You win today's No-Prize!!
What a Revoltin' Development.
Klink would be more accurate
My, my. Walking on eggshells, we are.
Ok, I guess I can not discuss Rush today on this thread.
Only if you give him a heroic, yet non-insulting androgynous nickname.
Doris,
Discussing Rush's weight (fat) and his substance issues (drug-addicted gasbag) are always welcome here, on any thread.
I'm no Mccain fan but I would like to ask this....do people in the media have to ask if they can simply make a statement about someone's reputation? How is this "conservative missinformation"? Holt said he had a maverick reputation, not that he is a maverick. Maybe you guys should read the transcipts a little more carefully before you site something as "missinformation". Must be a slow "evil cons disstorting media day".
A reputation, (despite all the evidence otherwise) given to him by guess who? The mainstream media -- who insist on repeating the poorly-deserved moniker over and over again.
Still doesn't take away from this as being a tremondous reach for this to be called "missinformation". To simply comment about someone's rep and be called on the carpet by a watch dog group is ridiculous. Seriously, would it be acceptable if every news outlet was proofread by mmfa before it airs anything? The reason Mccain has this "maverick" (re: rino) rep is that he's gone against the grain on certain issues such as immigration. Does he deserve this rep, probably not, last I checked he holds the party line 80% of the time. However, mmfa somehow finding this as overt missinformation kinda hurts its credibility
I think they should say "an alledged Maverick reputation". Seriously, how many people really still think of him as a "Maverick?" I think he lost that reputation when he hugged Bush after Karl Rove smeared him in South Carolina.
That's a fair point, Shaw. Saying McCain is a maverick vs. he has a maverick reputation are two different things. It's possible he still does have that reputation, even if undeserved.
Now, whether he still has that reputation other than with the media, I can't answer. That is an assertion for which a poll would be valid support.
As far I'm concerned he's not a maverick, he's simply a rino
what is really sad here is that Ii admired McCain ( and Randy Cunningham ) for their service to the country and fellow military personnell and over time, they allowed politics to sully their reputation. McCain served the US well both in combat and also in captivity. He eaned his right to be called a maveric flying the Skyhawk protecting the interests of the united States. In my opinion he lost the maveric status slowly over the years in politics by double speak and some have a hard time giving up the verbiage. I began losing my respect for mcCain when he started dodging questions < years ago, about his role as a senator, in stopping the illegal immigration thru the border in Arizona, his home state. that is when i became critical of him and stopped accepting blind accolades.
Good point, while being hailed as a maverick, he acts more like a coyote, making it easier for illegals to enter America.
I agree. I used to admire McCain for his sacrifice in captivity, in fact I still do. Many of his fellow airmen were tortured in Vietnam. That's why I fail to understand how someone with that experience doesn't stand up to ban the use of torture by America. Doesn't he see how that opens the door for torture of U.S. servicemen who may be captured?
He has
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/
Nice try, but the article link you provide was before the "McCain compromise." The compromise allows the use of torture methods for interrogation. That's a loophole you can drive an SUV through.
Yes, compromise is bad, thank God we never took both sides of the argument and reached a comprmise. About the "torture" which the worst of which seems to be waterboarding and putting underwear on heads etc., ie., not inflicting any serious pain. If this is done to extract info that could potentially capture terrorists or save american lives, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, that is the con view. On the other hand the far left would apparently only be happy if we pampered them and tried to extract info by saying pretty please. Governments make decision based on compromise. We take both sides and try to placate as many people as possible.
Nice try again, but sneaky little verbal jabs such as sneeringly referring to "pampering and placating" will not be effective. That is not at all what I'm talking about. Just another way for you to try and (unsuccessfully)frame the issue.
OK, how should we get information then? Enlist psychics? What's the weather like in never-neverland anyway?
Alright, lindenbully, it's been, oh around 19 hours and you still haven't responded with your solution as to how we can extract information and save american lives by not using the methods you call "torture". Since it's been so long I'm going to assume that, typical of many libs, you have a problem with our tactics of interrrogation but have no viable alternative. Shocking!
Please provide an example or two of where torturing prisoners has saved American lives.
Firstly if you read above waterboarding and sleep deprivation, harsh climate change can only marginally be considered torture and by all means if you can give me a viable alternative to our corrent tactics I'd like to hear it
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268742,00.html
using sleep deprivation and water boarding among other techniques, was more valuable to the security of the United States than all the work done at the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency,
So what's the alternative? I never get an answer to that question, harsh langauge? Excessive tickling? Please enlighten me as to how we should extract these throat cutters important information in a more "humane" but still effective way.
These links don't go anwhere that gives an example of where lives were saved by torturing, only "tortured" arguements as to what constitutes torture. Even granting that Fox News is a legitimate source (which actually, I don't).
Torturing yields bad intelligence. Sort of like when you threaten to launch a war against a country unless they turn over their WMD, and they don't have any.
How do you know who is a "cutthroat" and who isn't? Apparently there have been many falsely apprehended. I won't even go into the treatment of people who actually are guilty, since that obviously doesn't interest you--except to point out that for the last couple of centuries most Western Democracies have practiced a few basic principles of justice and human decency: "cruel and unusual" punishments are forbidden, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, etc. When it is deemed there are people out there who are so bad that the principles of civilized society should not apply to them it is a recipe for abuse. We sell our soul, and gain nothing. 9/11 could have easily been prevented with the measures in place at the time if the idiots and ideologues in the administration hadn't been asleep at the switch.
Not to mention the extent to which those videos from Abu Ghraib have become recruiting material for more suicide bombers into the Jihad against the US.
So people we catch shooting at american soldiers should be granted the rights of an american citizen? In which war did we ever do that? The article, btw, was from foxnews but sited a 60 minutes episode from CBS, do they count? And basically your reply was just a long way around the question I've now been askinf for two days. WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE THERE TO THE THINGS YOU CALL TORTURE? You nor anyone else has been able to give me a workable alternative so you're basically just saying "I'm against "torture" but don't have any other ideas". Again please tell me what other methods you suggest.
Almost an entire day has past and no one on this thread has given an answer to my question of what the alternatives are to harsh treatment (which you call torture) when extracting information from terrorists. Just pointing that out.
I don't believe the point of this article is false or misleading information per se. It is the "echo chamber" effect, wherein one commentator after another declares McCain to have a maverick reputation when in fact that reputation is generated almost exclusively by those commentators.