CBS' Schieffer didn't ask McCain whether Fred Thompson "denigrate[d]" and "attack[ed]" McCain's military service
SUMMARY: In an RNC speech, former Sen. Fred Thompson said of Sen. John McCain, "[B]eing a POW doesn't qualify anyone to be president. But it does reveal character." Similarly, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, in a July appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, told host Bob Schieffer that McCain was "a hero," and that "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war," but that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." But while Schieffer suggested in July that Clark "denigrate[d]" and "attack[ed]" McCain's "military service," he did not ask McCain about Thompson's remarks during a September 7 interview on Face the Nation.
On September 7, Sen. John McCain appeared on CBS' Face the Nation with host Bob Schieffer. McCain's appearance came just days after the Republican National Convention, during which former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) said of McCain, a former prisoner of war: "Now, being a POW doesn't qualify anyone to be president. But it does reveal character." Thompson's comment was similar to a statement retired Gen. Wesley Clark made on the July 29 broadcast of Face the Nation regarding the relevance of McCain's military record as a qualification for the presidency. After saying that McCain was "a hero," and that "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war," Clark responded to Schieffer's statement that Sen. Barack Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down" by saying, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." During the September 7 edition of Face the Nation, Schieffer did not ask McCain about Thompson's remarks, even though Schieffer has previously suggested that Clark "denigrate[d]" and "attack[ed]" McCain's "military service," and the McCain campaign has asserted that Clark "question[ed] John McCain's service to his country."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the August 3 edition of Face the Nation, Schieffer alleged that "[Sen. Barack] Obama's people are trying to denigrate the war hero's military service," referring to McCain. Schieffer did not explain which of "Obama's people" he was talking about, but on the July 31 edition of CBS' Early Show, when asked "what is it about John McCain that he [Obama] would attack," Schieffer responded, "Well, I mean, they've already tried this, there's no question about that," adding that "Wesley Clark, who was speaking for Obama, tried to marginalize John McCain's military service" during his June 29 appearance on Face the Nation. Schieffer cited no other examples of the Obama campaign "attack[ing]" McCain.
From Thompson's September 2 speech:
THOMPSON: Whenever John was returned to his cell -- walking if he could, dragged if he couldn't -- as he passed his other fellow POWs, he would often call out to them. He'd smile and give them a thumbs-up. For five-and-a-half years this went on.
John McCain's bones may have been broken but his spirit never was. Now, being a POW doesn't qualify anyone to be president. But it does reveal character. My friends, this is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of our history have sought in their leaders.
From the July 29 broadcast of Face the Nation:
CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy-making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it" --
SCHIEFFER: Well --
CLARK: -- "publicly?" He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Well -- well, General, maybe he --
CLARK: So --
SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you? If --
CLARK: Sure.
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?
CLARK: But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment -- and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
I thought MMfA was only interested in MISinformation.
Not to say that a republican telling the truth isn't newsworthy, but...
(cue Tommy)
"Thompson's comment was similar to a statement retired Gen. Wesley Clark made on the July 29 broadcast of Face the Nation....."
No it was not. The contexts were totally different, Thompson was puffing up McCain during his convention. If he had said that Obama was unqualified to be president because he was not a POW, that would be one thing, but he did not.
I think you may want to revisit your lunch hunch, Tommy. It's possible that it upset something a little higher than your stomach.
"McCain's status as a POW doesn't give him any more qualifications for president than those of a non-POW. "
That's a restatement of a concept from one of either Thompson or Clark. Which one?
Just to help you see them both in context;
THOMPSON; "John McCain's bones may have been broken but his spirit never was. Now, being a POW doesn't qualify anyone to be president. But it does reveal character"
CLARK; "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president"
Anyone can clearly see the contrasting intent of the two statements.
I'm trying really, REALLY hard to see this the way you claim to be seeing it, because, in general, you're not a dittobot. But I'm really, REALLY failing.
Clark made sure to laud McCain's service, before pointing out that his service contributes nothing to the execution of the office of president.
Thompson lauded McCain's service AND his stint as a POW, before declaring that being a POW contributes nothing to the execution of the office of president. But he claimed (without substantiation) that it contributed to McCain's character.
Are you trying to tell me that Thompson's "character assertion" is the trump card here? That Clark's lauding of McCain's military service wasn't enough? That he needed the POW/character reference to avoid the spinning of his "fighter pilot shot down" statement into a perceived attempt to denigrate McCain's service? Do you really think that Clark's purpose was to exclude McCain's POW experience from the rest of his service? Most importantly, do you really think Clark was denigrating McCain's service?
I can understand if you're clinging to one or all of those possibilities to maintain your "con-cred", but none of them seem very plausible to me.
Well, I don't believe that Thompson was "denigrating" or "attacking" McCain's military service as this headline by MMFA suggests he was. If you believe he was, then that is the divide within our disagreement.
No one believes that either man was denigrating McCain's service, so that's not the divide.
It's the furthering of the conservative agenda that's the issue here. It's unfair to condemn what Clark said yet condone what Thompson said. It paints a false portrait of what Clark said, making him look worse than he truly deserves to look (or, if it truly is a denigrating remark, but you give Thompson a pass for saying it, it makes Thompson looks better than what he deserves to look!), and either option forwards the conservative agenda!
Although I'm sure that it's something the hardwired programming of liberals can't grasp, let me try to explain the difference here. Clark's comments was "riding in a fighter plane and being shot down"- implication being a) lazy, easy time and b) incompetent, especially when phrased as "riding" rather than flying- something I'm sure the General, with all due respect should have known, and I'd postulate it was an intentionally derisional phrase.
On the other hand, Senator Thompson made specific note throughout the duration of his speech that Senator McCain's experience as a captive (distinct from being a) lazy, b) incompetent) reveals his character, determination and overall toughness in face of what to anyone would be the most disheartening, threatening and menacing experience one can imagine...
But of course this distinction is missed on hypocrites, who will, while decrying torture such as panties on heads (and rightly so given the culture of those its applied to ) will gleefully ignore, jeer or cheer at the five years of indescribable hardships, pain and abject physical suffering John McCain experienced because it suits your ideology.
"Although I'm sure that it's something the hardwired programming of liberals can't grasp, let me try to explain the difference here. Clark's comments was "riding in a fighter plane and being shot down"- implication being a) lazy, easy time and b) incompetent, especially when phrased as "riding" rather than flying- something I'm sure the General, with all due respect should have known, and I'd postulate it was an intentionally derisional phrase."
Schieffer said it first:"I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down." Clark was responding to that, hence the phrasing.
"On the other hand, Senator Thompson made specific note throughout the duration of his speech that Senator McCain's experience as a captive (distinct from being a) lazy, b) incompetent) reveals his character, determination and overall toughness in face of what to anyone would be the most disheartening, threatening and menacing experience one can imagine..."
Clark:"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war."
"But of course this distinction is missed on hypocrites, who will, while decrying torture such as panties on heads (and rightly so given the culture of those its applied to ) will gleefully ignore, jeer or cheer at the five years of indescribable hardships, pain and abject physical suffering John McCain experienced because it suits your ideology."
What kind of people would mock a veteran for political purposes? Just imagine if people wore band-aids to mock John Kerry's Purple Hearts. That would really have been beyond the pale, indeed.
Meanwhile, nobody is deriding McCain's experiences as far as I've seen. It's not some overwhelming qualification for public office. If you disagree with that, take it up with Fred Thompson.
Thanks!
I should also add that many of the things that us terrorist-loving liberals decry as torture are the very same things that happened to McCain. But Bush and McCain seem to think that's not torture.
Again, ignorance (meanig "unknowin, unfamiliar" not the insult that is used from the top down in the Dem party to describe conservatives), shows its head in how you respond. Gen Clark was well experienced in both over all command and the Vietnam experience. I am quite, quite sure that had he been talking to or about a chopper jockey in the Air-Cav, he would not have used the phrase "ride". Find a military- especially combat- pilot of that or any period and try the phrase on them. they will either snicker at you, or perhaps dress you down for your hubris. I don't have to look far. I married one.
As for the "who would" ? well, just read these boards. If you cant', within two articles, find replies from Irony and The "Colonel of Kluck" that doesnt' make a disparaging remark about Senator McCain's service, then I'd suggest you are intentionally blind. It's become almost a predicatable meme on here from them and others.
"Again, ignorance (meanig "unknowin, unfamiliar" not the insult that is used from the top down in the Dem party to describe conservatives), shows its head in how you respond. Gen Clark was well experienced in both over all command and the Vietnam experience. I am quite, quite sure that had he been talking to or about a chopper jockey in the Air-Cav, he would not have used the phrase "ride". Find a military- especially combat- pilot of that or any period and try the phrase on them. they will either snicker at you, or perhaps dress you down for your hubris. I don't have to look far. I married one."
I'm not sure if you have any grasp of psychology at all. Again, he didn't initiate the phrasing. When you're in an actual verbal conversation it's natural to adopt the established framework as long as it works for all practical purposes of conversation. That's the case here. Clark may naturally say "flew" on his own, but accept "ridden" under these circumstances. And this isn't two people talking at a bar. This is televised. He's not going to "snicker" at the host or dress him down over this, he's going to stay on his point as much as possible. In any event it's ridiculous to claim some sort of derisive intent, as if Schieffer used the word and Clark thought "Oh, I just got cover for making a dig at McCain that only military people will get, right after talking about what a hero he is for his service!"
"As for the "who would" ? well, just read these boards. If you cant', within two articles, find replies from Irony and The "Colonel of Kluck" that doesnt' make a disparaging remark about Senator McCain's service, then I'd suggest you are intentionally blind. It's become almost a predicatable meme on here from them and others."
Examples, please? Usually what I see is people mocking his overuse of his status. That's not the same as disparaging his experience or service at all. You can respect what he did without accepting his use of it as a shield from any and all criticism. For his campaign to say that he wouldn't "cheat" at Saddleback because he's a POW, for instance, makes a mockery of his service in itself.
"Thompson was puffing up McCain during his convention." Tommy
The comparison here is between Schieffer's take on basically the same statements. Clark's meaning during the Schieffer interview was no different then Thomson's meaning during the convention "puffing up" speech. The fact that they support different candidate's doesn't change things.
It's how Schieffer treated Thompson's wording of basically the same statement.
The comment is okay if you are pro McCain, but it's denigrating McCain if Clark says it..... The point is, it was not denigrating McCain when EITHER said it....the point of this article.
"The fact that they support different candidate's doesn't change things"
Of course it does, so one shouldn't consider the source when evaluating campaign rhetoric? Ya, right.
Okay....so we know why Scieffer thinks Thompson's similar comment is okay, but Clark's comment is denigrating.....it's because "we need to consider the source when evaluating campaign rhetoric. "
The source is Schieffer, and he favor's McCain. Is that what you meant, and can't we discuss the hypocrisy of Schieffer to treat similar comment from two party supporters differently?
John McCain is a war hero and patriot, there is no question, however It seems to me that Gen. Clark was responding to a statement made by Shieffer . Schieffer made the statement first “…..I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down” . Clark’s statement was factual, denigration intended or not.
Fred Thompson: "[B]eing a POW doesn't qualify anyone to be president."
Wesley Clark: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
If anything, Tommy, Fred Thompson's statement is a more direct attack on Gramps McCain, because he states it as if it were a fact; Clark's statement is merely him stating an opinion.
WZWriter......Yes, and to be more exact, Clark was refuting Scieffer' lead-in suggestion that McCain was more qualified than Obama because he was a POW and pilot.
Clark's answer was a restatement of what Schieffer said, with his take on it. Thompson was answering no one....his thought alone.
Once again demonstrating that liberals are out to lunch about this election.
And yet another post showing that you've spent your entire life out to lunch.
WEBE: "Enjoy your sour grapes this November kids."
Let me explain something to you, because you really need to understand it in order to converse intelligently in forums such as this one:
US elections are not about joining a team (R or D) and rooting for them through thick or thin. They are about choosing the person who is best qualified to run the country's operations (in the executive) and represent your interests (in the legislative). I'm very glad for your elation at the apparent lead in the polls of the guy you think is best suited to run this country.
But there is an underlying problem, as illustrated by the legions who think Obama is a Muslim or wants to kill newborns, or that the Democrats tried to throw away flags. That problem is ignorance, shared by a majority of the American public. That McCain is leading in the polls, or even anything better than down 20 percent, is a testament to America's ignorance.
So you post comments that reflect the pride you have in being a part of that larger ignorant America, cocky with the assuredness that even if you've made a really bad decision, you can hide anonymously within the majority.
How is it that those who were so sure that George Bush was the right guy for the country - TWICE - are so smug about their decision this time?
We've put up with 8 years of absolute disasterous executive operations and the erosion of our constitutional rights, enough that I was thinking there was no way that a Republican would even dare poke his head out to be a part of the presidential ticket this year. Not only have you ignoramuses shown how badly I had underestimated the ignorance of the general public, but awakened me to this fact: modern society has so completely countered the effects of natural selection that humanity is going through a period of devolution.
Though there are many of your kind, please take care of your bones, as they will someday be evidence of the missing link with which future scientists will map western society's demise.
Thank you for taking the time, Neon. It's a public service announcement that may be ignored by those who need it. All you can do is offer the help.
I'm amazed at these types too.Imagining they've "won" or beaten the other side by being fooled into forming an ignorant mob and electing a crappy president for all of us.
I am not so sure the poles are right. One of the biggest groups of voters for Obama are 18 to 30 year olds. How does a pole taker call those people when the majority of them have cell phones. Also the black vote is probably 90% for Obama. Calling people at random seems to me that your not going to get very many Black families. I contacted Zogby about that and they admitted that it is a problem. They said they were working on it.
Being a POW is different from being shot down while riding in a fighter.
Thompson emphasized how the POW experience shapes character.
Clark's comments demeaned how McCain became a POW, he was maybe just riding, not flying properly, careless or a poor pilot to have gotten shot down? Big deal, my guy emphasizes his character development through communication, kumbayah's and all that important stuff. Who needs to be a POW to get good character.
Clark was attempting to de-emphasize the value of McCain's experience in determining presidential qualifications of 'character'. He admitted that Obama has no executive experience and tried to lessen McCain's standing on this by flipantly throwing out this comment.
This is another looser for Media Matters (for very little) so keep these kind of stories about bias coming.
By the way, since the left cares so much about group rights and biases, why the negative tone about seasoned citizens. McGrampy and similar use of derogatory names for AARP members would seem to indicate that you don't respect the rights of older folks or their abilities. This kind of ageism bigotry needs to stop!
"Being a POW is different from being shot down while riding in a fighter."
Yes it is, and that point works against you.
Remember, Schieffer brought up the contrast between McCain being shot down and Obama not having that experience. That's when Clark said that wasn't a qualifier for office, and Schieffer said "Really?".
So what we're supposed to believe is that Schieffer believes that crashing a plane (under whatever circumstances) qualifies one to be President, but being a POW doesn't?
If he doesn't believe that, then it's a double-standard.
Clark's comments demeaned how McCain became a POW, he was maybe just riding, not flying properly, careless or a poor pilot to have gotten shot down?
You mean Schieffer's comment - those particular words were his.
Glad you said that, Graydogs. I thought I was going batty like Grampy McFeebles. Do you think Proudcon is really old, or just prematurely goofy?
This must be the "McCain's up 10 points in Gallup Poll" type of misinformation.
HA!!
The numbers are soft, at best.
And I suspect that Gramps McCain has been equally "soft" for years now......
My guess is that Obama will be up 3 points again in a week or two.
Barack will be headed for his landslide as soon as people learn how inept and unqualified Caribout Barbie truly is. And when people learn the truth about her by reading articles like these:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/pagenum/all/#page_start
The most interesting poll result was the screen text that said: "60% of Republican voters enthusiastic about voting, up from 39%"
Gallup has "enthusiasm polls". Enthusiastic about voting, but for what party? Are more Republicans now enthusiastic about voting for Obama?
I didn't see any screen text that says the poll showed Democratic enthusiasm at 67% up from 60%. (lowest party "enthusiasm rating" was 57% when Republican enthusiasm was at 39%.)
However the cable news stations are talking non-stop about McCain's "big bump", and polls taking the lead over Obama.
Then there is the newfangled electronic electoral map, that MSNBC can play with, to show various scenarios of how close the race will be if candidates take one state or another......in the swoop of a hand you can paint the states all red....what a visual message that is. Do you suppose "KarlRove&Co. Electoral College Polling Trends." is supplying cable news with it's new electronic visuals?
(Below is one of Rove's maps from May 16)
This is a fabulously funny and nonsensical effort by mmfa.
I agreed with mmfa when they reported on Schieffer's poor performance in the Clark interview...when he claimed Clark had denigrated McCain's patriotism.
In a style that can only be demonstrated by mmfa as shallow partisan reporting...this takes the cake.
So let me get this straight...mmfa would be happier if Schieffer had asked the same dumb question of Thompson that they tore apart before? Or maybe Schieffer took his paddling by mmfa to heart?
Or maybe this is just a silly post? I vote for silly...and WITH.
Or maybe this is just a silly post?
Every post you make here is silly, Wes.
Wesley, come on, man, use your head...
There's nothing silly about this post at all. It shows a glaring double standard by Bob Schieffer. It also reinforces what Schieffer is--in the tank for Sen. George McCain.
Schieffer disgraced himself, and it's important that Media Matters point this out again. Here was a chance for Schieffer to recctify his pathetic journalism, did he take it?
Let's lather, rinse and repeat for Wesley's sake.
Media Matters posts stuff when it forwards the conservative agenda.
Painting what Clark said in a different way than what Freddie said furthers the conservative agenda.
Why can't you remember what their mission is? Why is that so difficult for you?
If you could remember what it was, you wouldn't be asking WITH. You'd know Why This is Here. Either what both said denigrated McCain, and Schieffer should have mentioned that when Thompson said it, or it's not denigrating, and Schieffer shouldn't have tried to make that point when Clark was on his show.
It either makes Thompson look better than he deserves to look, if it is denigrating, or it makes Clark look worse than he deserves to look, if it isn't denigrating! There couldn't be a better example of the mission statement than this posting, and you can't understand it. That defines you, not Media Matters.
Yes, that's true - often missed in the discussions is that it was Schieffer who framed the question that way.
Thanks for mentioning it.