New McCain Doctrine: Preemptive lying

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Ok, so everyone is aware that McCain had a minor gaffe on thursday when he said he would fire Chris Cox as Chairman of the SEC:

“The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president and, in my view, has betrayed the public’s trust,” McCain told a rally in this battleground state. “If I were president today, I would fire him.”

Now, this was kind of a fuck up because the President cannot technically fire the SEC Chairman, but he can request a resignation so it’s not that big of a deal. Nontheless, the McCain campaign feared that Obama would jump on the error and hastily issued a press release preemptively expressing outrage about how Obama was going to “distort” McCain’s words:

"In his rush to score political points on economic disaster, we’ve heard that at his next event in New Mexico, Senator Obama is about to distort the facts and attack John McCain’s call for removing the Chairman of the SEC…

The President of the United States has the power to remove the chairmanship, and always reserves the right to request the resignation of an appointee and to maintain the customary expectation that it will be delivered. Perhaps Barack Obama isn’t strong enough to change Washington, but John McCain is."

So how did McCain’s psychic powers work out for him? Here is what Obama actually said:

“In the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other-way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path,” he told a campaign rally in Espanola. “Don’t just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration. Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who’s going to fight for you.”

So now the McCain camp is no longer in the realm of even twisting or distorting or selectively misinterpreting Obama’s words. They’re attacking him for what the imagine he MIGHT say.

We’re through the looking glass.

[Frank]

The President of the United States has the power to remove the chairmanship, and always reserves the right to request the resignation of an appointee and to maintain the customary expectation that it will be delivered.

But he doesn’t have the power to remove the Chairman of the SEC, similar to his lack of power over the Federal Reserve. He can request all his little heart desires - so what?

A true politically appointed employee, such as the Secretary of State, or the head of FEMA, can be fired at any time; appointed employees such as Cox or Bernanke are statutorily protected. Does McCain really not know this?

[Morgenstern]

Actually, I think the pressure is getting to JM. He’s misspeaking just about every day now. He apparently realized his mistake in the “firing” statement, and responded today that he’d call for the resignation of the chairman of the FEC. Watching Rachel Maddow mock JM for his dimwitted mistakes is the best part of this election.

[crowmanyclouds]

He’s changed his mind already,

… McCain compared the situation to former president and general Dwight D. Eisenhower. McCain said the night before the invasion of Normandy during World War II, Eisenhower wrote both a letter of congratulations to the troops, should the operation be a success, and a letter of resignation, should it fail.

“My friends, that kind of accountability and responsibility is missing in Washington today,” McCain said, and then he misspoke. “That’s why I believe the chairman of the FEC should resign and leave office and be replaced.” …[RIGHT]CITE[/RIGHT]

just wants him to quit his night job!

CMC +fnord!
Through the looking glass, and swallowed both the red pill and the blue pill with a big glass of adrenochrome to wash 'em down!

[Rand_Rover]

So where’s the lie (i.e., a statement that is false that the speaker knew was false when making it)?

If you think McCain was lying when they said they heard Obama was going to discuss the issue in a speech, what’s your support for that proposition?

Also, on the merits of Obama’s statement, it’s convenient how he forgets the Democratic Congress that apparently hasn’t done anything either.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The lie is accusing Obama of “planning” to say something he wasn’t planning to say. Is it really supposed to be meaningful to weasel it by saying “well that’s what we heard?” Heard from who?

[Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical]

@Morgenstern

Watching Rachel Maddow mock JM for his dimwitted mistakes is the best part of this election.

A much to narrowed view. Watching Rachel Maddow* is* the best part of this election.

[MEBuckner]

I for one and shocked and disgusted that that one McCain supporter who is going to post later on in this thread would advocate doing such things to adorable little kittens.

At long last, sir (or madam, as the case may be), have you no shame?

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The lie is accusing Obama of “planning” to say something he wasn’t planning to say. Is it really supposed to be meaningful to weasel it by saying “well that’s what we heard?” Heard from who?

What’s your support for the proposition that McCain knew Obama wasn’t planning on saying that?

[askeptic]

@Rand_Rover

So where’s the lie (i.e., a statement that is false that the speaker knew was false when making it)?

If you think McCain was lying when they said they heard Obama was going to discuss the issue in a speech, what’s your support for that proposition?

Also, on the merits of Obama’s statement, it’s convenient how he forgets the Democratic Congress that apparently hasn’t done anything either.

Thank god you people only make up 45.4% of the population as of today…

[Rand_Rover]

@askeptic

Thank god you people only make up 45.4% of the population as of today…

Wow, 45.4% of the population are atheist fiscally conservative socially liberal lawyers? Color me surprised.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

What’s your support for the proposition that McCain knew Obama wasn’t planning on saying that?

Who gives a shit what he knew? Not knowing isn’t an excuse to make the accusation.

I heard John McCain is planning to fuck my dog. What is your proof that I didn’t really hear that?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The lie is accusing Obama of “planning” to say something he wasn’t planning to say. Is it really supposed to be meaningful to weasel it by saying “well that’s what we heard?” Heard from who?

Uh… we heard it from a guy… you know… that guy on Obama’s campaign that says stuff.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Who gives a shit what he knew? Not knowing isn’t an excuse to make the accusation.

I heard John McCain is planning to fuck my dog. What is your proof that I didn’t really hear that?

You, sir, are confused about what a “lie” is. But you’re in good company–it’s a common malady here on the dope.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Rand_Rover

What’s your support for the proposition that McCain knew Obama wasn’t planning on saying that?

Oh ya? well what’s your proof for your supposition of the non-support of the proposition that McCain didn’t know that Obama was not planning on never saying that?

<brain explodes>

[garygnu]

@Rand_Rover

What’s your support for the proposition that McCain knew Obama wasn’t planning on saying that?

What the fuck?

[Rand_Rover]

@garygnu

What the fuck?

Care to help the class and define the term “to lie”?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

You, sir, are confused about what a “lie” is. But you’re in good company–it’s a common malady here on the dope.

Making an accusation you don’t know to be true is close enough to a lie that I don’t really give a shit about your snivelling equivocations.

[Shayna]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Making an accusation you don’t know to be true is close enough to a lie that I don’t really give a shit about your snivelling equivocations.

He’s a lawyer; he can’t help himself.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Making an accusation you don’t know to be true is close enough to a lie that I don’t really give a shit about your snivelling equivocations.

You’re just saying the same thing in different words. You still have to show that McCain did indeed “make an accusation he did not know to be true.”

Look, McCain didn’t lie. But what he did do was pretty weird (i.e., responding to something that Obama hadn’t even said yet). Why not just get mad at that? Why do you have to say it’s a “lie”?