[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Make-Believe Maverick

[Paul Rumelhart]

No Weatherman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   
>> I took the "by his own account" part to mean he mentioned it in one of his
>> autobiographies, either "Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir" or "Faith of my
>> Fathers".  A little googling shows some references to his time spent in
>> Annapolis in FomF.  I have not read this book, but I have found many
>> references that cite it as a source for his habitually large number of
>> demerits (he was in the "century club"), his drinking, and his bad grades
>> (he was fifth from the bottom of his class when he graduated).  Here are a
>> few:
>>
>> http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/book_reports/The-John-McCain-Story01.html
>> http://www.buy.com/prod/faith-of-my-fathers/q/loc/106/207653945.html
>> (contains an excerpt that mentions his large number of demerits, and refers
>> to "frivolous escapades")
>> http://www.slate.com/id/1003569/ (summaries of indiscretions from the book)
>>     
>
> It's called a false light. Notice the author didn't put it in quotes.
>   

I'm afraid you're confusing me.  I put "frivolous escapades" in quotes, 
because that was exactly how it was described, by John McCain himself, 
in an excerpt from his book.  Are those the quotes you were referring to?

>   
>>> 5.      The fifth thing I noticed was the author's objectivity. He really
>>> impressed me with his inability to find one mitigating circumstance,
>>> one kind construction, one favorable witness, or one good thing to say
>>> about Sen. John McCain.
>>>
>>>       
>> He does not seem to like him very much, nor did he try overly hard to give a
>> balanced review of his misdeeds.  That's why I'm asking about this.
>>     
>
> Can you ever imagine a scenario where Rolling Stone would do a
> favorable piece on a conservative?
>   

I would like to think that yes, someday they might do one, assuming that 
they have never done one before.  I don't read Rolling Stone, so I have 
no idea if they feature a conservative in a good light every other edition.

I do agree that the piece was definitely against McCain, with no 
apparent attempt at balance.  However, facts are facts, which is why I'm 
asking what McCain supporters think of the piece.  Are there alternative 
explanations?  Did the people quoted have a particular axe to grind?

>   
>> McCain has written two memoirs:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Faith-My-Fathers-Family-Memoir/dp/0061734950/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223245385&sr=8-1
>> http://www.amazon.com/Worth-Fighting-Education-American-Maverick/dp/081296974X/ref=pd_bbs_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223245385&sr=8-6
>>
>> and at least two other books:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Courage-Matters-Braver-Life/dp/0345513347/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223245520&sr=1-2
>> http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Call-Art-Great-Decisions/dp/044669911X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223245520&sr=1-8
>>
>> However, I can't really find the measure of "number of memoirs" to be that
>> revealing about a candidate, good or bad.  Except, of course, for what was
>> published in them.
>>     
>
> I didn't know that about McCain. My point about the two memoirs was
> the Obama is relatively young, politically speaking, to have written
> two memoirs already. At this pace he's due for 4 to 6 if he hits
> McCain's age. Just a tad bit self-absorbed for a public servant.
>   

Maybe he just enjoys writing, or maybe he feels he has something 
valuable to say.  I still don't find it a good measure for fitness as a 
public servant.

>   
>>> 7.      Finally, the last thing I noticed is that if RS could fabricate
>>> this much dirt on John McCain, using only 15 sources to confirm
>>> absolutely none of the narrative, can you imagine what they would
>>> discover if they started asking the hard questions about Barrack
>>> Hussein Obama's long-standing personal and professional relationship
>>> with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? Now THAT would be juicy!
>>>
>>>       
>> You use the word "fabricate", when I think you mean "reveal".  Unless you
>> have some sources that conflict with what was published in the article.  So
>> far, I have been able to find sources backing up everything we've discussed
>> here, some written by John McCain himself.
>>     
>
> I literally meant fabricated because the author cited NO sources to
> support his narrative. In reality it was a long-winded editorial that
> had a few quotes woven into it.
>
> The worst thing I ever read about McCain was the story of his divorce,
> which the author supported with court documents and interviews with
> the key players like his ex-wife. It was horrible what McCain did to
> that woman -- made me want break his arms and kick his ass. That was a
> credible report that didn't need any extra spice from the writer to
> make McCain look worse. I'd give the hyperlink but I really don't
> remember how I found it.
>   

I wouldn't say NO sources, but they could have done a better job 
explaining where all of their information came from.  For example:

COL Dramesi, who had the chance encounter with McCain described in the 
first part of the article, was definitely there, definitely did try to 
escape twice, and even wrote a book about it.  The article states only 
that "Dramesi say today" as a source for those quotes.  Did they 
interview him?  Did they get that from another source?  Did they 
fabricate it?  Remember that fabricating such a thing could get the 
author in a heap of legal trouble.

Rita Hauser, who claims that McCain's ambition overrode his basic 
character, appears to really have been on the President's Foreign 
Intelligence Advisory Board (she's now the president of the Hauser 
Foundation).  The article does not give a specific source, but is 
assumed to have interviewed her.  Is this true?

In fact, much of the article appears to be quotes from interviews given 
directly to Rolling Stone, but are not specifically noted as such.  It's 
possible they are quotes made in other sources, though no other sources 
are given.

Much of the rest of the article is the author's particular slant on 
those quotes and other facts given in the article.


Paul