One of the fundamentally intriguing aspects of this discussion was that it shows how politicians live in a hermetically sealed and insulated world. Their debates follow rules that allow them to spew without engaging the opposition. The media, pro or con, has to accept a certain level of soundbiting and talking points. But when a smart person from outside of the Beltway has a chance to challenge them they often show an inability to react. When pushed on his talking points McCain showed an inability to adjust. He just tried to talk longer and faster. This apparently is what passes for "Straight Talk" from the engineer of the Straight Talk Express.
6 comments:
Strange. I watched the same interview you did. Not sure what you're talking about. McCain until the end of the interview was regularly interrupted while trying to make his points until he couldn't take it anymore and started to talk over Stewart after he interrupted him for the last time. Stewart repeatedly questioned McCain like he was a part of the Bush administration so McCain after each question would have to say that he has had strong differences with the administration in the past in order to separate himself. When you ask questions with the same faulty premises, you're going to get the same answers.
Furthermore, I'm sure that Stewart is a lot more confident to behave as he wants when he has rabid upper west side liberals following his every remark with wild applause. Why McCain would even appear on a show like this is beyond me. No one who religiously watches that show would vote for him.
I love Jon and I sympathize with his frustration over the war and politics today (as many of us do), but I think anonymous has it right on this one. Jon can use his entire monologue section to make his points. During the interview, I'd like to hear what the guest has to say rather than listen to Jon answer his own questions. Jon reminded me of O'Reilly tonight.
Anonymous,
Are you singling out just "upper west side liberals" or all of us? For example this east side West Texas liberal would agree that McCain and the Bush administration are not the same entity, but he is still a Republican who believes the War in Iraq can be won through a military solution as does the Bush clan. He also supports the war, and like the Bush folk, refuses to acknowledge that there were never any weapons of mass destruction and that they knew this to be the case prior to the war. In addition, the Republicans refuse to take part in any discussion that would hold them accountable for such mistakes and lies; another example being the Pat Tillman cover-up. I could go on.
Also, grow a pair and sign your name as opposed to using your anonymous moniker.
Jaime
http://cyberhacienda.blogspot.com/
Gee, "anonymous," I saw the same interview you did and it seems to me the interrupter (and spinner) was McCain, not Stewart. I'm no "rabid Upper West Side liberal," and I was applauding Jon, too.
In all honesty, I do not see what serious person could say thatMcCain was not almost desperately on script. As for interrupting, Stewart only interrupted when McCain simply kept talking at the end. There is this myth among some folks that if you just talk for as long as you want you can claim moral high ground by feigning insult at being interrupted.
As for the "Upper West Side" comment, I too am perplexed as to what it means and how on earth it is germane. Are we really saying that The Daily Show's audience consists of Upper West Side liberals? I hope we (and by "we," of course, I mean "anonymous") are not. Because that would be a stupid thing to say inasmuch as it is demonstrably wrong. In any case, I wrote my post far from the Upper West Side. And by the way -- that Upper west Side assertion is nothing more than a lame attempt at an ad hominem. Let's address the issue rather than preconceived (and in this case wrong) geographical stereotypes. And if you are assuming that the audience is all locals, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
And no one assrted that McCain is part of the Bush Administration. In fact McCain said it so often that Stewart almost had to mock him for continually asserting something so obvious. But McCain endorses certain policies on the war -- and that is what is at issue -- that McCain's assertions of difference paled on the issue on the table. Furthermore, given that we are talking about an ongoing war and an actual surge policy, it would be beyond absurd for Stewart not to talk about that actual war rather than the war that McCain apparently envisions going on in his parallel universe.
I admired McCain a lot more in 2000 than I do in 2007 when his straight-talk seems awfully zigzaggish and generally scripted.
And again, I'm curious why it is ok for him to invoke his military experience -- must say, I did not know that he was fighting in this war, which is the war we are discussing -- or to claim that his anecdotal experience with soldiers who all apparently agree with his precise approach to the war carries more weight than our empirical knowledge of the fact that there is a sizeable number of troops who do not agree with McCain's apparently faultless, omniscient, all powerful views on a conflict that, inconveniently, is not going well.
dcat
I can't wait until Tzipi Livni becomes the prime minister of Israel so that for the first time in a long while, someone a whole lot more honest, intelligent and cogent than just about any politician I've ever heard before will occupy a conspicuous place on the world stage. I'm sure "Upper West Sider" Charlie Rose, whose interview with her was no less interesting than almost any of his other interviews, would agree.
Of course, until then, in the states at least, we'll be fixated on the presidential horse race and continue to follow the only candidate who even comes to embodying those qualities - Obama. McCain is just a GOP wild card whose time has (unfortunately) gone, both politically and gerontologically - although I think it's unfortunate that many people hold his age against him, at least to the degree that they do. In the meantime, the left remembers their flirtation with him and the fact that his star power and experience made him a respected voice among those who were hoping for stronger opposition to GWB's various and copious forms of horseplay.
Haven't even seen the video myself, but these discussions are interesting to follow since they show the degree to which perception really has become everything in this day and age. And our being embroiled in something as foggy as the situation in Iraq only exacerbates that tendency, rather like the blind men who touch different parts of an elephant and each believe they're witnessing something different. Only now, we combine that picture with the polarized stances that the stark reality of war encourages and everyone believes that their argument is the only part of the elephant. There will likely be no coherence to the discussion until a strong and plausible, (and therefore, likely, a new and entirely different) course is conducted, and when you put all those ingredients together, the only options are a new leadership that won't be available until 2008 and a likely exit of some sort or another. Problem is, the latter depends on the former.
Post a Comment