Media uncritically repeat, echo false charge that Obama attacked Cindy in ad about John McCain
SUMMARY: While discussing an Obama campaign ad that noted Sen. John McCain's reported inability to say how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own, MSNBC's Joe Watkins claimed, "I thought that Barack Obama was not going to attack Senator McCain's wife." The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder uncritically reported the McCain campaign's claim that "Obama's charges 'attack Cindy. She owns the homes.' " But Obama's ad neither mentions nor refers to Cindy McCain or the McCains as a couple.
On the July 21 edition of MSNBC's Verdict, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's campaign ad "Seven," which noted McCain's reported inability to say in an interview how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own, MSNBC political analyst Joe Watkins claimed, "I thought that Barack Obama was not going to attack Senator McCain's wife." Watkins later stated, "This is John McCain's wife who owns the properties, and Barack Obama is attacking John McCain's wife." Additionally, in an August 21 blog post, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder uncritically reported the McCain campaign's claim that "Obama's charges 'attack Cindy. She owns the homes. I thought he said the wives were off-limits.' " But Obama's ad neither mentions nor refers to Cindy McCain or the McCains as a couple.
Further, neither Watkins nor Ambinder noted that while Cindy McCain "owns the homes," Sen. McCain has reportedly used the family's Sedona vacation home for fundraising. In a March 6 blog post, Politico's Jonathan Martin reported, "John McCain will spend this weekend playing host at his Sedona vacation home to a handful of his top donors, according to a source familiar with the trip."
From the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Verdict:
ABRAMS: Let's turn now to what has become a major gaffe by John McCain today during an interview with Politico.com. McCain's stumbled over a simple question about how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.
[...]
ABRAMS: You're going to tell me that it is normal, that everyday Americans will just accept the fact that, you know, people don't know how many properties they own. It gets confusing, you lose track? Really?
WATKINS: No, I'm saying that somebody with a portfolio might, especially with his wife's portfolio, because, I mean, I thought that Barack Obama was not going to attack Senator McCain's wife. I mean, Senator McCain --
[crosstalk]
ROY SEKOFF (Huffington Post founding editor): But he couldn't even come close, Joe. I mean, he couldn't even come close. He had to consult his staff?
WATKINS: This is John McCain's wife who owns the properties -- this is John McCain's wife who owns the properties, and Barack Obama is attacking John McCain's wife. John McCain told people to lay off of Barack Obama's wife. I think that Barack Obama at the very least would do the same.
On his radio show today, Hannity used the same line of attack, conveniently forgetting all the attacks he made on Teresa back in 2004.
And the SEVEN ad never mentions Cindy McCain...thus, the reason for the above. Agree?
Speaking of SEVEN, the movie is a good one....the ad is also good.
I mostly respect your comments.
In this case however , I have to ask. Was she more in the background than Mrs. Kerry?
Thanks.
Speaking of which, funny that it was Fox who in June called for McCain to run attack ads against Michelle. In fact, here's the tenessee republican party doing just that.
And apparently McCain already attacked Michelle.
Wake me when this doofus says something "insensitive". Until then, he's staying on the air.
Other FoxNews shows repeated that story this evening. I was only half listening, so I thought something new must have come out that actually attacked Cindy.
There's no way that pointing out that McCain doesn't know how many houses he and his wife can live in is an attack on the person whose name is on the deed! That's ridiculous!
The person whose name is on the deed isn't the only person who should know how many houses she and her husband own.
The fact is, they own several condos that aren't for them to live in - they bought one for an older aunt I think, and there's two condos at the beach, one for them, one for their kids I believe, and there may be one for a daughter that they bought but she lives in. At one of their properties, there are several homes on the large lot, but only one that the McCain's live in.
So, I think the 'true' answer to how many homes does he have is likely FOUR. It doesn't have to be 7, or 8, or 10 to be an extreme number. 2 is an extreme number for most people. Some people can't afford to have a home at all. Anything about 2 is extreme for virtually everyone but a millionaire.
And McCain knows it. He knows that the false meme he's supposed to be spreading at any cost is that Obama is the elitist, the man whom regular folk can't associate with. Obama, the guy who grew up fatherless, being raised with the help of his grandparents. He was burdened with the fact that he is half white, half black in a society that doesn't always sanction that fact of life over which he had no control and therefore shouldn't have had a burden from! He got himself into a very good school, then really made something of himself. That's the American dream, to come from the circumstances that he did, to end up where he is now.
And, as always, the righties try to turn his positive into a negative, and act like he's something foreign, someone out of touch with the daily struggles many of us face.
And, like in 2004, John Kerry, the real military hero, was trashed to put up a smokescreen that ignored George Bush's lack of military credentials! This time, John McCain is the out of touch guy. He was the child and grandchild of Navy Admirals who got into Annapolis as a legacy, barely made it through, was such a bad flyer that he crashed several planes, and couldn't get himself promoted high enough, fast enough in the Navy once he got home, so he quit. Then he married into wealth.
Obama had a high income last year because of the sale of his book, so that's the salary they're gonna mention all election season, but that income was an aberration. John McCain's available money? Millions every year for decades! Who's the elitist again? Who's the one getting unfairly attacked?
bleach blonde posted:
was such a bad flyer that he crashed several planes, and couldn't get himself promoted high enough, fast enough in the Navy once he got home, so he quit
OK blondie, time to show us what you really know as opposed to just spouting off lame and LYING left wing talking points.
How did McCain crash several planes? Any ideas. Do you have the Naval accident investigations from NPS? Do you REALLY know what you speak of? No you don't. I'm going to clue you in to the fact that someone that "crashed" several planes and walked away from it probably did something RIGHT.
I'll save you the trouble of digging. Two aircraft suffered engine failures during routine training. Not unusual for trainers at the dawn of the jet age. The other "crash" was an ejection after hitting power lines during training at low altitude.
The most famous was a 500 kt + ejection after a SAM took half a wing off. This broke both arms and a leg.
Stop regurgitating stale talking points. You make yourself look stupid and they're not true.
It is, in fact, unusual for a pilot to have two planes suffer engine failure, even back in that day and age.
One plane he landed in the water while practicing landings.
In addition, he crashed the other one through sheer negligence, and who's to say that he didn't do a crappy job avoiding the stuff that shot him down?
And in the case of the plane that burned up on the aircraft carrier, killed a bunch of people and almost sunk the ship, here's a take on it that, if true, is a really scary thing to say about a man who's trying to be elected president.
Surviving crewmen and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that McCain deliberately 'wet-started' his A-4E Skyhawk to shake up the guy in the F-4 Phantom behind his plane.
Wet-starts shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. It was a common practice among young 'hot-dog' pilots.
In McCain's case, the wet-start cooked off and launched the rocket from the plane behind McCain's, punctured the Skyhawk's fuel tank, knocked a bomb off its mount, and touched off the explosions and a massive fire.
John McCain's military career is not a distinguished one. One would almost think that you didn't want me to look up this data for fear that I'd find out that what you said wasn't really true!
John McCain's military career is not a distinguished one.
That's why he's had to focus on having a better career as a former POW...
John McCain's military career is not a distinguished one.
That's why he's had to focus on having a better career as a former POW...
Bobbleblonde posted:
t is, in fact, unusual for a pilot to have two planes suffer engine failure, even back in that day and age.
Really. You're basing this on what? Do you even know what type of trainer McCain was flying? I suggest you check before making this statement.
One plane he landed in the water while practicing landings.
Yeeeeaaah...He WAS in the NAVY after all...they do fly off of boats, oh never mind...
In addition, he crashed the other one through sheer negligence, and who's to say that he didn't do a crappy job avoiding the stuff that shot him down?
What was THAT "sheer negligence" of which you speak Bobbleblonde?
And in the case of the plane that burned up on the aircraft carrier, killed a bunch of people and almost sunk the ship, here's a take on it that, if true, is a really scary thing to say about a man who's trying to be elected president.
One little problem with this one bobblehead...the Navy has what is called PLAT Tapes. They record action on the flight deck for review of incidents and accidents. You get the feeling with where I'm going with this????? Yeah, there is video proof this is a LIE you're helping to spread. I'm going to walk you through the video because I can tell you couldn't tell an A-4 from Obonga's Boeing jet. The A-4's have their tails pointed OFF the deck of the Forrestal. There is no way a "wet start" could have ignited the F-4's rocket. Even if that was the case, it would not cause a rocket to jetison.
I know of what I speak bottleblonde. I'm a gradutate of the Naval Postgraduate School for Aviation Safety:
USS Forrestal accident
Let's please keep the debate above board. You're doing the very thing that MMfA is trying to stamp out on our side.
I posted:
There is no way a "wet start" could have ignited the F-4's rocket. Even if that was the case, it would not cause a rocket to jetison.
Let me quantify that. I should have put necessarily behind Jettison. It could happen, but it probably would not happen early in the accident sequence. A fire most likely would break out then the heat would set off other ordinance like in the actual sequence of the Forrestal.
My response was a hypothetical in response to the LIE perpetrated by morons like yourself and bobble head bleach blond.
Tool.
I had close relatives that flew in the US Air Force in the 50's, 60's, and 80's so I do know about jet planes. There were lots of books in my house about flying all my life, and there still are. I'm also well-educated. It's not true that it was usual to have two engine failures like he did, and it's quite possible that he mucked something up. In addition, he wasn't practicing water landings at the time his plane landed in the water.
Top that off with your lame posting history here. 'Nuff said.
Bottlehead, so you have PROOF that McCain cased two engine failures? That is what you're implying right? Am I not getting your drift?
If you DO have proof, which you obviously don't because you'd have LINKED it by now, please share for us unwashed aviation buffs. Once again, no left wing crazy sites.
As for the PLAT tape, the evidence is there. You can choose to ignore it, it just makes you look even more clueless.
Happy hunting!
"Bottlehead, so you have PROOF that McCain cased two engine failures?"
I sure hope you demanded the same from the Swift Boaters and the people calling Obama a "commie".
Personally, I try to give the benefit of the doubt without absolute proof (as I do in the instance of McCain's crashes), but I am still amazed when I see rightwingers only demand it of the opposition and not their own side. It just seems so disingenuous.
I was very critical of Kerry coming home and lying in the famous brief to the Senate.
Lying is fair game.
I've also stated here that both Kerry and McCain walked through the lions den which is more than 99.9% of the pantywaists posting on this forum have done. They both deserve a little respect. More than we've given them here.
Duh.
why dont' you watch the film that was taken of the incident sometime? If you observe the missile hitting McCain's plane, it was launch from FORWARD and slightly to port of his plane, hitting just behind the cockpit. Pretty hard for a wet start to have flamed a plane in front of his I'd say.
More of the typical kool-aid crowd nonsense. Really, you people, especially the likes of "irony" are pathetic in your bloviating self deception.
It really irks me seeing how the liberal element on here seems to think that the wildest fantasy they can come up with is the truth and any statement by a conservative has to be a "lie". well, I'm going to try to take the wind out of that. I see you all say that when you dont' have the expertise in an area, that you still can "reason". So, with that in mind, I'm going to take bottleblonde's assertion and prove it for the fantasy it is regarding the "wet start".
A "wet start" is one where there is a surplus of fuel injected into the combustion chamber of a turbine based jet engine (as opposed to a ram jet, which is a continuous "wet start-wet run") before the normal sequence of start up events takes place. when the turbine rotors create a comparatively small amount" of pressure, the liquid fuel is ejected from the tail vanes of the engine, creating an expanding sphere of moderately hot (still not combusting) fuel and ambient air. it's nto even compressed enough to spontaneously ignite (like a diesel engine). Rememebr in physics (yes, that's my field of expertise, and also I confirmed much of this by asking my hubby who was a three tour vietnam pilot, flying phantoms.), expansion equates to loss of heat or potential energy (there is no action called cooling- it's all just movement of heat within a system, but I'm sure all you "global" scientists must know this.... <roll eyes>) and that effect would have disspated almost all of the heat potential over a larger area before it could get to another plane.
When the ignition of the compressed stream occurs in the engine, the exhausting has sufficient heat to make the ambient fuel air misture that's lingering around the exhaust vane ignite with a "fart" so to speak. I use that term so you frat boy sorts can relate to it. it creates a rapidly dispelling "spheroid" of quickly dissipating gasses ahead of the normal, concentrated stream of the thrust plume. The simple fact is that the jet exhaust at run up reaches further, with more thrust and far more heat energy contained within it, than the "wet start" burp. Logic should tell you all that if they placed aircraft close enough to be damaged by normal jet blast, a "wet start fart" should NOT cause damage. there is also, if you know anything about the protocols for this, procedures, regulations and so on that are in place and controlled by ground or deck crews. Such things with carrier based craft as having their tails pointed off deck, use of blast shields, and controlling proximity of planes to each other.
In effect, Bottleblonde's wild and fever induced asseritions are "all wet starts" themselves.
I too don't much like the "my team vs your team" style of thinking, but the lying ratio between conservative and liberal leaders is so lopsided that it becomes a timesaver.
I'll go ahead and concede the "McCain started Forrestal" thing to your team if nobody else will and if it'll make you happy. Because we don't need that talking point to win. McCain told Rick Warren that spending cuts will balance the budget. That's a wild fantasy; there aren't nearly enough bear DNA projects to add up to $400 billion. I'm sure it "irks" you when conservatives believe that fantasy, right?
And it's really funny how you could only address that one tiny part of my whole post, yet you say that I don't sound sincere.
Look in the mirror.
I never said you were being insincere just that you are lying about McCains record, specifically about his "crashing" planes. You also said:
ohn McCain's military career is not a distinguished one. One would almost think that you didn't want me to look up this data for fear that I'd find out that what you said wasn't really true!
Please. I encourage you to finally do some research! No left wing smear sites. They perpetrate the "myth". :)
Are we allowed to believe Naval Records again?
I'll never, ever belittle or question McCain's Vietnam experience but for years I've been told by other righties ( not you, but many others, especially those who never served in the military) here that Naval records don't reflect the truth and that people make up their own military records and give themselves commendations.
Again please don't take this as my questioning McCain's service or comparing his to others service but many on the right don't see that their words and behavior towards others who've sacrificed might now come back to haunt McCain.
WKIng:
Good point. Without getting to technical here, commendations and accident investigations are two entirelly different animals.
Commendations can be, well, spruced up a bit. I(one person) can submit paperwork for you for a Bronze Star lets say. It then goes up the chain and may or may not be rubber stamped until you get it.
Accident investigatons involve many people with many hats. Up to and including the FAA, NTSB (if the accident happens over US/ foreighn soil), the manufactuer of; powerplants, airframes, external equipment and finally the units Safety team. The AF and Army actually have go-teams that can deploy and be anywhere in 24hrs theoretically.
You can see, many people would have to be "in" on the rig to fudge an investigation. Believe me, those manufactures reps are there for lawsuit purposes.
I hope that shed some light on your question.
Since when does anything Watkins say come from his own mind?
All he does is parrot the talking points of the GOP.
So why bother even having him on. Just put up Talking Points on a poster board and point to it when a question is asked.
I think John McCain, as a former POW, understands the strategic efficiency of hiding behind ones wifes skirts when faced with dangerous situations.Making sure that all of his assets are in his adulterous mannequin's name is just the type of defensive foresight we need in a leader.
Some of you younger posters may have never seen the documentary Hogan's Heroes.It outlined some of the more brilliant tactics used by POWs to ensure their survival. Hogan's comrade, Corporal Klinger( also a POW), demonstrates a very successful use of the "Androgynous End-Around" maneuver, a ploy that effectively keeps the enemy at bay using the double-barreled threat of "hitting a girl" and "touching a homo".
OK, I may have two separate documentaries mixed up, but my point stands;Fend off any attacks by deflecting to your distaff alter-ego.It's what a real man, and former POW, does.Once your entire identity is subservient to your much more successful* spouses, any questioning of your conduct can be dismissed as not only an attack on a POW (which John McCain is) but picking on a girl.
*Successful (from Conservapedia) 1.Having been born into a lot of money. 2. Chronically Unemployed with several homes. 3. Thinking that "rich" means you make at least 5 million bucks a year.
Some of you younger posters may have never seen the documentary Hogan's Heroes.It outlined some of the more brilliant tactics used by POWs to ensure their survival. Hogan's comrade, Corporal Klinger( also a POW), demonstrates a very successful use of the "Androgynous End-Around" maneuver, a ploy that effectively keeps the enemy at bay using the double-barreled threat of "hitting a girl" and "touching a homo".
LOL
Col, you're a hoot!
Not to wonder off the point here but, Would "hooking up" with a senator give a drug adicted hooker some cachet?
Now back to the topic. Is it true Mc"C"'s pet name for Cindy is: Perci or is it Vico?
Mc"C" said he would not use negative attack ads. I sure hope I don't see any. So far so good , right?