Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
March 7, 2008
POLITICS: McCain 5, Elisabeth Bumiller 0

We've had a bunch of people weigh in on this around the blogosphere, and I don't have much to add except to say that if you actually watch the video of Senator McCain's exchange with NY Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller it's pretty clear that McCain is doing exactly what he should be doing when confronted with a "gotcha" question about an old story on which there are no new facts and the reporter is just trying to pick a fight:

The Times and Ms. Bumiller are not on John McCain's side, and there's every indication by this point that he is well aware of that fact, and is now dealing with them accordingly. (Unlike the Obama camp, McCain is no stranger to the national spotlight - he was quoted on the front page of the Times as far back as 1967). Not to point out the obvious, but John McCain has been tested by strains far worse than Ms. Bumiller's questioning here. Sure, it's well-known that the man has a temper. Many successful presidents have. But there's a time and a place for getting your Irish up - righteous indignation is no sin - and this seems like one of them. I can't even imagine a single voter who would watch this video and be somehow distressed by the man's judgment.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:33 PM | Politics 2008 | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

You give the dems holy hell for supposed "evasions" or "flip flopping" or "vagueness" but McCain gets a free pass from you for flying off the handle and refusing to admit he considered crossing over to the dark side and becoming JOhn Kerry's VP against Bush? Youre truly losing it in your election coverage; there is no modicum of respect that you give either Dem for their legit talents nor any amount of concession about McCain's legit foibles. Here's news for you; MCCAIN IS GOING TO GET WORKED IN THE GENERAL.

Posted by: dante at March 7, 2008 10:49 PM

Dante,

Crank did not address the claim that McCain considered crossing over. He mainly addressed the confrontation between McCain and the DNC agent. Most of us remember the BS from 2004. The was considerable talk about who would be Kerry's running mate. None of us know the exact context of the conversation, but my guess is Kerry reached out to McCain to gauge his interest. McCain is often too friendly with his fellow senators from the wrong side of the aisle. So I have no doubt he listed to the overtures, and possibly briefly considered the idea before rejecting it out of hand. For all our complaints with McCain he is far to conservative to run on a Dem ticket and he understood that.

Posted by: largebill at March 7, 2008 11:21 PM

And when McCain is to Conservative to run on the Dem ticket, it shows you how far left the Dems have traveled over the last 30 years.

Posted by: maddirishman at March 8, 2008 7:42 AM

Unlike the Obama camp, McCain is no stranger to the national spotlight - he was quoted on the front page of the Times as far back as 1967

Like the tides and the sunrise, it's gotten so that you can set your watch to a preposterous statement from Crank about Obama. In 1967, Barack Obama was 6 years old, so his quotations were probably better suited to Highlights or Junior Scolastic.

So Crank, unless you're suggesting that there's some inherent reason that a 71 year-old is better suited to serve as Chief Executive than a 47 year-old -- and if there is, please enlighten us with your explanation -- this one moves straight into the Top Ten of the "Crazy Crank Comments of the 2008 Election."

Dude, you're LOSING it. If you were on "my side" I'd be cringing over some of the stuff you've written lately. I've read you for three years now, and even though we disagree on lots of stuff, there's a reason I've kept coming back. But some things you've said in the last couple months are off-the-charts unbelievable.

Come back, Crank.

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2008 9:35 AM

dante - Two things. First, the point about this line of questioning is, it's an old and unimportant story, the facts are not in dispute, there's no new information, and it's extremely obvious from the context that Bumiller wasn't trying to get at the truth, which is already pretty much known, but rather to pick a fight. Journalists shouldn't roll over for candidates but they shouldn't pick fights just for the sake of making a story, either.

Second, if McCain wins this thing you guys who are talking smack are gonna look like fools. I've never suggested that McCain has this election in the bag or is even the favorite at this juncture - but just as in 2004, I'm getting all these comments from people on the left who just can't imagine that the American people will vote Republican. Just saying it does not make it so.

Mike - My point is simply that McCain knows what he's doing with the media. The past week's events show pretty clearly that a lot of the Obama folks - his wife and senior advisers as well as the candidate himself - don't.

Posted by: The Crank at March 8, 2008 9:50 AM

Getting a little testy there, Mike. Maybe you need a vacation.

Posted by: andrew at March 8, 2008 1:41 PM

Anybody who thinks this is a video of someone being angry and confrontational clearly doesn't know what it means to be either angry or confrontational. Wake me when he throws a lamp.

Posted by: Jeep at March 10, 2008 10:07 AM

I can't imagine what the Presidential candidates go through in regards to their dealings with the often clueless media. Especially McCain who the press is more hostile too, or at least a lot of the reporters are actively trying to defeat him (although I'm sure there are a few doing the same to the Democrats). This woman's questions were totally stupid (I wonder how she feels that almost every thinking person in the country thinks she's a total idiot?). I guess she's lucky she was on a plane, anywhere else she probably would have been asked to leave!

Posted by: Tom at March 10, 2008 2:14 PM

Crank: You've got a tremendous blind spot for McCain's foibles which are absolutely legion. He gave very serious thought to joining Kerry, if only because it gave him the opportunity to stick a thumb in Bush's eye and advance his own power. He gave very serious thought to switching party affiliation altogether after his nomination defeat in 2000. The guy has a very serious anger problem, and whether that's understandable PTSD due to his captivity in Nam its a very legitimate problem that independent voters are going to be wary about. Its one thing to have a tough president on foreign affairs; another thing entirely to make rash judgments in the diplomatic or military arena. And I'm sorry but his age matters a lot to independents in a negative way. He's 71, he's battled cancer, he doesnt LOOK as vital as the dems on the stump, and whether that's superficial or not it will cost him precious votes at the margins. He's not this stalwart maverick that he has successfully presented himself as being; he's very much an opportunist and slowly but surely that is eroding into his image. Which is the primary reason why he's trying to say he'll fight "clean" versus Obama and why he "protested to much" vs NYT....there are a LOT of skeletons in that closet. YOu cant keep scabbing that over with, gulp, Obama's favorite word...hope.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at March 11, 2008 1:18 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg