Blitzer on McCain: "I know he's a straight-talker"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Discussing Sen. John McCain's statement that "if the election were tomorrow ... Republicans would lose seats in both the House and the Senate," Wolf Blitzer asserted of McCain, "Should he be saying that right now? I know he's a straight-talker, but what do you think?" Blitzer has, on several previous occasions, pronounced McCain a straight-talker.
On the June 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer aired an audio clip of Sen. John McCain saying, "Right now, if the election were tomorrow, we would lose -- we Republicans would lose seats in both the House and the Senate. I mean, that's just a fact." Blitzer then said: "All right, that's straight talk from John McCain. If the election were right now, the Republicans would lose more seats in the House and Senate." Blitzer then asserted as fact that McCain is a "straight-talker," asking Republican strategist John Feehery, "Should he be saying that right now? I know he's a straight-talker, but what do you think?" Blitzer has referred to McCain as a "straight-talker" on several previous occasions, despite McCain's flip-flops and list of false assertions.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Blitzer has said that McCain "usually takes pride in" his "straight talk"; that "[t]here was some straight talk from the Straight Talk Express" in response to McCain's call for Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) to resign; and that "[t]here was a lot of, I guess a lot of straight talk from John McCain today, but some are suggesting maybe it was a little too much straight talk," in response to McCain's statement that he would lose the election if he doesn't convince voters that the U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding -- even though McCain had already retracted his statement. Additionally, Blitzer once teased a report on Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson's statement that he "would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances" by claiming that "Senator John McCain likes straight talk. But you can bet he won't like what a leading Christian conservative is saying about him."
Further, Blitzer did not explain why McCain's assertion that Republicans would lose seats in Congress if the election were held today constituted "straight talk," given that other Republicans, including the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) have predicted losses for Republicans in Congress. The Wall Street Journal political blog Washington Wire reported in a June 12 post that during a meeting with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, NRSC chairman Sen. John Ensign (NV) "said his best-case scenario" would be a loss of three Republican Senate seats. The post quoted Ensign saying: "That would be a terrific night for us, absolutely ... I don't want to slip below the four-seat loss. That's kind of where we've set our absolute worst goal is to be down to 45 seats."
Also, in a May 14 memo to the Republican leadership, Rep. Tom Davis (VA), a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), asserted that "[t]he political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006 when we lost thirty seats (and our majority) and came within a couple of percentage points of losing another fifteen seats." Davis also predicted that "without some meaningful changes in direction, the GOP is heading for losses bordering on another twenty seats in the House and up to a half dozen Senate seats." Further, a June 26 Associated Press article quoted NRCC communication director Karen Hanretty saying in reaction to an "internal review" by House Republicans, "This is a challenging environment. ... Any Republican running for office has to run basically on an independent platform, localize the race and not take anything for granted. There are no safe Republican seats in this election."
From the June 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Here is a sound bite from John McCain speaking about the conservative brand right now, and I want to discuss this, so I'll play it.
McCAIN [audio clip]: Right now, if the election were tomorrow, we would lose -- we Republicans would lose seats in both the House and the Senate. I mean, that's just a fact.
BLITZER: All right, that's straight talk from John McCain. If the election were right now, the Republicans would lose more seats in the House and Senate. Should he be saying that right now? I know he's a straight-talker, but what do you think?
FEEHERY: Well, I mean, it's -- he is a straight-talker. And the fact is, we probably lose a couple seats in the House and a couple seats --
BLITZER: A couple, is that all?
FEEHERY: Well, you know, I'm not sure what the exact number will be. But I think it's straight talk.
It is straight talk, come November the repugs are going to be extinct.
"Right now, if the election were tomorrow, we would lose -- we Republicans would lose seats in both the House and the Senate. I mean, that's just a fact."
I think Gramps actually IS being straight on this.
WITH.
I have no concern about this silly "straight talker" or "maverick" label that MMFA seems to find so stinging with regards to McCain, but in this case the straight talk label is certainly appropriate for his specific comments here......to say what he did about his own party is straight up honesty.
Well, I'm gonna have to agree with Tommy on this one... but it's narrowly qualified as in just for this particular instance. Blitzer was right on this point ONLY but the other times when MM points out the 'maverick' garbage they are spot-on.
MM's being a bit petty with this one, sorry.
The word parser can't read for comprehension.
Blitzer paraphrased: "Given McCain's reputation for honesty, I can see why he's trashing his own party. But is that good campaign strategy?"
That paraphrase isn't my opinion. It's what Blitzer's words clearly mean in context.
When I said "that paraphrase isn't my opinion", I meant "that paraphrase is someone else's opinion", not "that paraphrase is fact." Your reading of what I said is just silly.
I have to say that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. It's your paraphrase, your interpretation, therefore your opinion. You said it, so how can it be "someone else's" opinion? If you're referring to Blitzer, then of course he was stating his own opinion, and that's odd to bother pointing out. It seems like a reasonable interpretation that you were saying that interpretation was beyond any dispute whatsoever.
That being said, what you said is easy to justify. It's reasonable to say that in context it's clearly what he meant. And of course Tommy has no room to talk because when Jeter declares his interpretations to be FACT (yes, in all caps, so it's not like Tommy could miss it), Tommy just approves of what he says. It's only a problem for him if a liberal does it.
That post was a joke copying the Tommy obfuscation strategy. Tommy obviously interpreted my comment correctly, just like I obviously interpreted Blitzer correctly.
Exactly, Steeve. The issue here is that the exact context of Blitzer's words is that Blitzer is a right wing Republican himself telling a flat-out pro-Republican lie about McCain in an effort to throw him a political lifeline.
Now, Tommy can pretend not to see that all he likes, but you and I, to our credit, are both refusing to do so.
There is no WITH problem with this thread, tommies protestations notwithstanding.
Blitzer called McSame a "straight-talker" in an absolute sense ... "I know he's a straight talker ..." It doesn't matter if McCain really is one this time, or even if he is correct. Blitzer called him an unqualified "straight-talker."
We know that McSame is far from a straight-talker, but a flip-flopper extraordinaire. Blitzer calling McSame a straight-talker as if it were some incontrovertible fact just further moves forward the conservative agenda. This is well within MMfAs scope.
MMfA 1 - Tommy 0
"It doesn't matter if McCain really is one this time, or even if he is correct"......Ahh, this is MMFA's beef; Score -1 for you.
"Blitzer called him an unqualified "straight-talker.""......Ahh, no he doesn't; Score -1 for you.
By my calculations you are now at -2.
Sure Blitzer called him an unqualified "straight-talker". But tommy, you're like the little child on the playground, with your hands over your ears, saying "I can't hear you" ... "la la la la la la la la."
MMfA 1 - Tommy -1
Yes, but he's making a declaration about McCain's nature in general, not about the specific incident.
If he had said something like "That's some risky straight talk", then that would be fine because it is actually straight talk, and doesn't make any commentary beyond that individual instance. The generalization is the problem.
Just curious..... how many times did Wolfie refer to Kerry's "flip flops" or Gore's "exaggerations"?
When the CNN political media hack wolf blitzer refers to John McCain as a "straight-talker", or even as a "maverick" (as he has done often I believe), he is referring to John McCain by a contrived made-up campaign device "nick-name" (maybe even a focus group-tested nick-name: who can say how those nick-names were arrived at, except for those who devised them: the McCain campaign itself)... the point here is, that this hack blitzer does McCain's campaign work for him, by using the contrived nick-names "straight-talker" and "maverick"
Now, if the Obama campaign should contact this political media hack blitzer, and inform him that Sen. Obama's nick-name is "true blue", or "The Patriot", then blitzer will do the same for Sen. Obama's campaign, that he does for McCain's, right?
He'd then refer to Mr. Obama as "true blue" ("I know he's true blue"), or refer to him as a "Patriot", in the same way he refers to McCain as a "maverick", right?
When hack blitzer refers to McCain as a "straight-talker" or as a "maverick", he does the work of the McCain campaign, by referring to him by a contrived made-up devised campaign nick-name... he proves himself beyond any doubt, to be a political media hack, when he does that.
It's astounding, flipping and flopping
Campaigning takes its toll
But listen closely, at least until November
I've got to talk some more
I remember doing the 'Cain Warp
Drinking those moments when
The blankness would hit me and the earpiece stopped working
Let's do the 'Cain warp again...
Let's do the 'Cain warp again!
It's just a flip to the left
And then a flop to the right
With your head up your @ss
You kiss your sweet @ss goodbye
But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane,
Let's do the 'Cain Warp again!
It's so dreamy, my campaign will free me
So you can't see me, no not at all
In another contention, with diebold's intention
Left excluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
I'm saying some deep shit
And changing it the very next day
You're spaced out on sensation, like you're under sedation
Let's do the 'Cain Warp again!
Not only is the double talking flip-flopping John McCain a liar, Wolf Blitzer is also a lying right wing conservative Republican himself. Blitzer's being the good Republican in throwing Liar McCain a lifeline.
It should be noted that GOP-CNN is also right wing conservative, and also is controlled by corporatist conservative Republican Johnathan Klein.
Yes Blitzer can say that simply because he has to stay on script. On CNN I've only noted that Jack Rafferty is the only one to ever point out McCain's short comings. He recently did an article on McCain's flip-flops. Trust me, I was shocked. I did not believe that CNN had an ounce of fairness in them. Not unlike Fox news, CNN has heavy support for McCain. Outside of Keith Olbermann on MSNBC I do not see Obama getting much support elsewhere from the talking heads.
I use to think Chris Matthew of "Hardball" had a little admiration for Obama but since it seems he is bucking for a new job(?) he spends more time talking about Obama's so called mystical problems, or maybe he just hated Hillary so much he only played up Obama hoping to ensure that she would not be the winner.
Until Obama win this election (and watch how the talking heads flip their own hype) I doubt seriously he will ever be given equal treatment.
Apparently, to Wolfie, "straight talker" means something like "inability to either be honest" or "grand champion flip-flopper."