Basically, they’re saying that John McCain, during a dinner party at Arianna Huffington’s house, admitted that he did not vote for Bush on '02.
From the original post made by Huffington:
Here are some statements made by West Wing actors Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff:
I think Whitford’s recollection of McCain complaining about W’s wandering attention span has a particular ring of believability to it.
McCain is now denying he ever said this, but he stopped short of accusing all the witnesses of lying.
Questions for debate: Do you believe that McCain really said this? Do you believe that the conservative, pro-Bush base that he needs in November will believe it, and do you think it will affect his standing with them?
Personally, I think he would have been totally justified in not voting for W, considering what had been done to him in SC and I would actually think better of him if he just admitted it.
McCain is now saying that he not only voted for GW Bush in 2000, but campaigned hard for him. We can only speculate about what he did inside the voting booth, but any campaign efforts he may have made on Bush’s behalf should be pretty well documented.
The Bush campaign against McCain got real ugly. Worse than Clinton and Obama (at least neither of them have attacked their opponent’s children). And McCain has a temper. So it wouldn’t surprise me if he refused to vote for Bush.
That said, McCain’s denying the story and the sources that are being cited are not unbiased.
Sure he campaigned for him, but that doesn’t mean he pulled the lever for him.
I know we can’t actually speculate about what he did behind the curtain, but we can decide whether we believe he claimed not have voted for Bush at that dinner party. If he actually made that claim, he was either lying then or he’s lying now.
It seems to me McCain’s trying to walk the line between retaining the Republican base that still think Bush is doing a heck of a job and not pissing off the rest of the voters that are tired of Bush. I think that would be the most sensible reason why this is at all significant, but McCain’s outright denial seems inconsistent with that theory.
If all the hardcore Freepers and Dittoheads out there believe that he really made this claim, it could further alienate a base that’s already lukewarm on him and who he desperately needs to turn out in November.
Do you have a cite that the actors are biased or have a reason to lie? McCain not only has an obvious motivation to lie, but also has been caught lying several times already in this election cycle.
If Bill O’Reilly was reporting how Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Selleck said they heard Barack Obama say something eight years ago that would embarass his campaign, would you assume that their word was unquestionable?
I dunno, there are a lot of conservatives I’ve read who’re really quite ticked at Bush on various issues (especially immigration). Depending on their overall beliefs, it might not have much of an effect at all, or maybe GOOD for McCain.
No, but I wouldn’t assume it was questionable either. If there were four witnesses claiming Obama said something, I would probably give them the benfit of the doubt, especially if Barack Obama had already been caught out in a series of other lies like McCain has. I don’t see the political leanings of a witness as being any kind of automatic barometer of honesty.
But at least those dudes you named have made their political opinions public. Have these West Wing dudes ever done that? I’m not saying they haven’t I’m saying I don’t know. I don’t really know anything about them. I’ve never seen that show and never even heard of the dude named schiffer.
According the articles linked in the OP, Bradley Whitford is a registered Democrat who’s announced his support for Clinton and Obama. Richard Schiff is a registered independent who has announced his support for Obama.
Again, I’m not saying that makes them liars. But it doesn’t make McCain a liar either.
When it’s four against one and the the one not only has the most reason to lie, but a proven history of lying as well, then I think the four are more likely to be telling the truth.
Also, Arianna Huffington has no history of fabricating stories on her site. I find it unlikely in the extreme that these people are all just hatching this story up.
Consider the source and consider the timing. Why did she wait until now to report this if it had been a story since 2000? It would be more believable if she had reported it in 2000, or in 2004 when McCain was campaigning his ass off for Bush or earlier last year when McCain announced his presidency.
In fairness, I am having a hard time finding anyone who admits voting for Bush and I live in a district where Gore and Kerry hardly appeared in the tallies after the elections.
There were more than four Swift Boaters and only one Kerry, and Kerry had more to lose than they did.
So I guess they must have been telling the truth. :rolleyes:
Huffington is an idiot, but she is a left-wing* idiot, and therefore her crap is swallowed wholesale by the knee-jerkers. This is hardly the first time the dumb bitch has tried to assist in smearing McCain. And her attitude to the truth is a little too flexible for comfort - she seems to have plagiarized some of her books (cite - she settled out of court).
Believe her if you like - as if any power on earth could stop the Usual Suspects from believing anything once they decided to fall for something - but don’t mistake this for anything real.
Regards,
Shodan
*She seems to have switched over to the Dark Side some time after her husband decided to do the same, but with a wider stance. cite
Which one? There’s four of them. Does Hiuffington have any history of making up stories in the Post?
When you say “consider the source,” don’t we also have to consider the source of the denials? Of the (so far) five people involved, only one has a proven history of lying. Remember Maverick telling us about the safe it was for him to walk around the sleepy streets of Baghdad (failing to mention the 100 miltary bodyguards around him or the Blackhawk helipcopters and Apache gunships hovering overhead) and claiming that Gen. Petraeus frequently drove around in an unarmed Humvee (a declaration that literally provoked laughter from military personel asked to confirm it). Remember the discussion about becomeing Kerry’s Veep which he said he never had and then angrily said that everybody knew he DID have? Remember that Lobbyist that he’d never talked to who he swore in a legal deposition that he HAD talked to?
McCain has a greater credibility problem and more reason to lie than anyone else involved in this story. I think it’s interesting that McCain has stopped short of outright accusing Arianna Huffington or any of the others of lying. Maybe he doesn’t want to end up being deposed under oath in a defamation suit.
