Debate Prediction: Schieffer Raises Ayers
In tonight’s debate, will McCain have to choose to retain his manhood (by raising Bill Ayers, as he has promised to do), or his honor (by pretending to be above the vile insinuations his campaign has resorted to)? I predict, with Bob Schieffer’s help, he won’t have to make that choice.
I predict Bob Schieffer will direct Obama to speak about Bill Ayers, thereby resolving McCain’s dilemma of whether or not he should raise it himself.
You see, in spite of the right wing worries that Gwen Ifill would throw the debate to make sure her new book sold tons, and in spite of real concerns that the guy who was NBC’s special liaison to the McCain campaign was moderating a debate, the moderator with the real objectivity problem is Bob Schieffer.
Schieffer loves McCain. More specifically, Schieffer is in love with–and still propagates–the myth that McCain is a man of honor above the fray of Washington politics.
Schieffer has consistently bought McCain’s most outrageous baloney–most recently his claim that he had suspended his campaign, for example, or that Sarah Palin had opposed the Bridge to Nowhere.
But the most instructive example, I think, is the way Schieffer let McCain off the hook for having had two of his convention speakers attack Obama for serving as a community organizer, even while setting up McCain to talk about what an exceptional man he is.
SCHIEFFER: We heard Rudy Giuliani talk about Barack Obama being a community organizer, and he sort of did it in a sort of denigrating way.
Sen. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.
SCHIEFFER: And the audience sort of giggled when he said that. And then we heard Governor Palin talk about being a mayor, and she said, "That’s being a community organizer with responsibilities." You know, I know a lot of people who think being a community organizer’s a pretty good thing to do. I know in your speech, at the end, one of the parts that I liked most was when you called on Americans, "If you want to make things better, enlist in the military, teach, help somebody that’s hungry." Why would they use that term in that way?
Sen. McCAIN: I think, Bob, first of all, I meant every word of my speech, that people who serve causes greater than themselves are the happiest in the world. And you and I have known some very wealthy people that aren’t very happy.
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.
Sen. McCAIN: And we’ve known some people who are out there every day helping others who are the happiest. So I admire and respect all public service. I think what happened was it was a reaction to the Obama campaign saying and denigrating the fact that she had been mayor of a small town. Now, that was an attack that immediately was launched against her, which I–obviously, the fact that she’s most popular governor and knows more about energy than anyone else in America at that level, in my view. But, so I think it was a reaction to the denigration of her role as mayor. But I know that she shares my respect for all people and appreciation for all people who are–serve their community and their nation. And as you know, she’s got a son who’s doing that.
SCHIEFFER: So you do not think that it’s a negative that Barack Obama was a community organizer?
Sen. McCAIN: I do not. I do not think it’s a negative. I think it’s very honorable. I do know that he never took on his party on any major issue from the time he came up in the Chicago political arena to the time he–the short time he was in the Senate. He never took on his party on a single major issue. I’ve taken them on a lot.
SCHIEFFER: Is that why you said that you’re the one who can change, and that he’s just sort of not up to it? [my empahsis]
On an issue with similar stakes and themes to the McCain campaign’s race-baiting, Schieffer stopped well short of holding McCain responsible for the ugliness propagated by his campaign. Not only did Schieffer allow McCain to excuse Palin’s and Rudy’s ugliness, but he let McCain claim his own beliefs were unrelated to what got said at the Convention. And then, as McCain used the discussion to pivot into an attack on Obama, Schieffer magnified McCain’s attack by asserting, as if it were McCain’s argument and not Schieffer’s, that Obama’s just not up to being President. "Here, McCain," Schieffer seems to be saying, "here are the words you need to successfully pivot from a real stain on your own honor to an attack on your opponent’s."
In short, Schieffer collaborated with McCain to turn what should reflect badly on McCain directly into an attack on his opponent.
Aside from the stakes for McCain of this debate, the biggest drama will be whether McCain fulfills his promise to make insinuations about Ayers to Obama’s face, or whether he will instead choose to forgo the kind of smears that are inciting violent outbursts. It’s a drama pitting McCain’s manhood against his vaunted honor.
But I’m guessing Schieffer won’t let McCain make that choice–I’m guessing Schieffer will ask Obama about Ayers himself.
Update: Great minds think alike.
Please! Please! Come back in; you are way too far out on a limb here!
So rather than the over-under, are we taking the inner-outer on this one?
In this election cycle, Schieffer’s behavior has required raising the ceiling on assinine.
And besides being an utter assitwelve, he’s shown all the signs of Pollyanna in early stage Alzheimers.
The other important detail is whether Schieffer brings it up in posing a question to McCain, or Obama. Who responds first makes a difference, too. Naturally, he’ll let McCain respond first. Were he to ask Obama, Obama could taunt him coolly about being too much of a scaredy-cat to bring it up to his face before.
Oops. I see you think he’ll ask Obama. It would make more sense for him to ask McCain, though.
If Bob Schieffer ask Obama about Ayers (this issue has been clarified many times) wonder if Schieffer will ask McCain if he killed any innocent Vietnamese while flying over Vietnam. Just what did McCain do while flying over Vietnam he was not sight seeing.
I will not act like I respect someone who “allegedly” killed innocent people. I am sorry that young men and women end up in wars as cannon fodder for rich white mens agendas, but McCain was not innocent or naive. I am sorry that he ended up in prison and was tortured but that does not mean I have to pretend to respect what some folks call “service to the country”.
Vietnam was as immoral and illegal as the invasion of Iraq.
Also
Yea, that would go over real big.
Of course not going to happen but still like to bring it up. What is the deal with everyone feeling like they have to say they respect his service in Vietnam. Pathetic pandering. That was a fucking bloody and immoral war.
I think he’ll ask Obama–and give full credit to the smears. “It has been said that you have ties to known terrorists. Why shouldn’t voters be concerned about that?”
I hear what you say about asking McCain first, but if McCain has to raise it, he will get attacked by the David Gergen’s of the world.
For Schieffer to avoid cognitive dissonance–as much as anything else–Schieffer has to make sure that nothing impugns McCain’s honor with this.
Good forecast–McCain was caught in a no-win and you are right the beltway crowd will bail him out.
…ask McCain under the guise of gentle criticism about his campaign tactics, which would simultaneously let McCain talk about Ayers and partly inoculate him against a sharp Obama response deriding those tactics.
What I am wondering is will Bob Schieffer allow McCain and Obama to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran? I have heard McCain say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons during the debate and on Chris Matthews Hardball and George Stephanapolous This Week. Every time I have heard him repeat this not one journalist has challenged him. For the first time several Sundays ago on Face the Nation Obama said “Iran IS developing nuclear weapons”. Bob Schieffer let this very serious and inaccurate claim slide by. No challenges. When will Schieffer, Chris Matthews, Stephanpolous, Tom Brokaw, Gwen Ifill, challenge these inaccurate and inflammatory statements? When will any of these journalist and candidates draw their information about Iran from the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran or from the Iaea instead of from the Aipac website or Senator Lieberan?
Will Bob Schieffer allow McCain to repeat the often repeated and false statement that Lieberman, Kristol, Palin, McCain and others have promoted for quite some time. The false claim that Iranian President Ahamadinejad said that “Israel should be wiped off the map”. Will Bob Schieffer allow this very dangerous and inflammatory statement to be repeated without a challenge?
Professor Juan Cole has debunked this alleged statement.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/0…..chens.html
“But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.”
Will FACT Check or any of the other groups who look into the facts challenge these false statements after the debate.
If I had a million bucks I would bet that one of the most critical issues in the middle east the occupation of Palestinian lands, the Wall being built on Palestinian land and illegal settlements will not come up tonight. This serious issue and one of the root causes for the violence and anger that people in the middle east feel towards American and America is based on this issue. SHHHH let’s not talk about it
Apples and oranges.
Juan Cole makes the case for what Ahmadi-Nejad said, but I’m not sure he’s done much into why he said it – which IMO has a lot to do with US foreign policy towards Iran since, oh, at least as far back as the Truman administration.
But surely all Obama is doing is exploiting the obvious: of course Iran gives off the appearance of developing a nuclear arms program – it’s the single closest thing to a Middle East “superpower” sitting right between Israel – armed to the teeth with US nukes – and Pakistan – armed at least as much – with the US messing around in both, and the regional policy of both having all the sanity of exercise period in prison for the criminally insane. To suggest that Iran does NOT want to give off that appearance is to suggest the powers-that-be in Iran are completely irrational.
Nor will the election of Obama over McCain change that dynamic. The next administration has to deal with medicating all three.
Thanks a lot, George.
What would be examples of Iran “giving off the appearance of developing a nuclear arms program”? I hear and read just the opposite from Iaea’s El Baradei. Iranian President saying that they are enriching uranium for their nuclear energy program. Repeating that they have the right to enrich uranium under the Non Proliferation Treaty that Israel, Pakistan, and India will not sign.
Interestingly, I watched the first two debates on CBS where Katie and Bob did the post-debate “analysis.” Bob could not have been more certain in his statements that Obama came off better than McCain after each one. I will have to look more carefully at the Shieffer comments. and look forward to tonight’s debate.
The purpose of this thread is to pre-whine about Schieffer, don’t mess wit it.
Is it okay if I post-whine? “g”
I’m down with all of it, just callin em like I see them. Think about this, the conventional wisdom here is that Ifil and Brokaw were both biased for McCain in the debates one way or another. Obama, by almost all accounts, won both debates. I don’t think Obama needs any advice from anywhere, he knows exactly what he is doing.
I agree and think he will put a stake in it tonight.
Yes. He will.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
According to Professor Juan Cole and others who speak Persian this is what the Iranian President said
“the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.”
He did not say
“Israel should be wiped off the map”.
Will Bob Schieffer allow the Iraq and Iran warmongers false interpretation of what the Iranian President said to be repeated for the hundredth time (or more) over the last three years?
I’ll make an addition to this prediction. As ‘balance’, Schieffer will offer up a softball Keating 5 question to McCain that includes in the question McCain’s past statement of regret.
Re: “As ‘balance’, Schieffer will offer up a softball Keating 5 question to McCain that includes in the question McCain’s past statement of regret.”
That would be too sharp, huh. Schieffer including that acknowledgment in the question would carry the weight of an accepted foregone conclusion and in so doing remove any onus on McCain to be convincing. With that kind of alley-oop, a simple “that’s right” by McCain will do. That would be unwatchable.
Well the Obama team can hardly have overlooked that possibility – so what will their gameplan be? Gently stonewall Schieffer and leave the question hanging, to invite McCain to bring it up? Or launch into a full defence and then pivot the question by raising the real associations McCain and Palin have with real extremists?
Schieffer loves McCain.
On not again. When are they going to emerge from teh closet?
Don’t forget that Schieffer defended McCain’s honour like some gallant Southerner defending Scarlett O’Hara when Wesley Clark said that on Face the Nation that getting shot down doesn’t qualify you to be President:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI…..index.html
Thanks. I was concentrating on the most recent lovefests for McCain from Schieffer.
But that was a doozie, too.
CBS’ Bob Schieffer, tonight’s debate moderator – his brother is Bush’s ambassador to Japan.
Nuff said.
I got a better one, Obama does to throw off whatever McCain has planned on it. Yeah, just small chance but it would be damn funny if he hit it early on his terms and got in a dig that McCain did not have the guts to say it to his face (and maybe get McCain pissed as well).
Granted its a total waste of my time and everyone else.
How about if they ask what the dollar will be worth in 6 months.
Or what interest rates will be in 6 months…
Bah ha ha:
Schieffer loves McCain. More specifically, Schieffer is in love with–and still propagates–the myth that McCain is a man of honor above the fray of Washington politics.
I imagine he is not a stupid man so I guess you are right he is in the tank. I never fully bought into the McCain lie, but all the additional research of late makes him even more repulsive.
I am going to take the Under.
I believe that Schieffer loves McCain, but I also don’t see him as wanting to be a “Newsmaker”.
I think it will come late and be something on the order of what Lehrer tried to do in the first round: “Do you have anything you want to say directly to each other to address some of the personal attacks that have been levied?”
Obama will take a pass of Ayers and Let McCain open up if he has the guts.
But Bob won’t go specific.
Because Schieffer has got to see the writing on the wall just as does everyone else, and must know that bailing water for McCain at this point will not help his lineups on Sunday Morning for the next 4 years…..
That’s the thinking, but Schiffer once called George W. Bush “a well read man”, and I believe Schiffer’s going to try and help McCain out.
yeah, well red after he’s had a few
is everyone drinkin tonight?
One of the first things Schieffer does in this most recent McCain appearance is note that McCain has surpassed the previous most frequent guest.
Bob Dole.
The writing was probably on the wall at that point.
Jim Lehrer was a former Marine, and Tom Brokaw is all Greatest Generation. I’m sure Schieffer thinks that Bob Dole could have kicked Saddam Hussein with his one good arm.
Mixed metaphor alert – punched with his one good arm!
You’re the winner.
I was pleased (as an Obama partisan) with how Schieffer handled this issue. And I think it speaks most to his own long-range self-interest and recognition that the writing is on the wall for his buddy, McCain.
Face the Nation transcript…..
Bob Schieffer: Well you, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, “untested and untried,” And I must say I, I had to read that twice, because you’re talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He’s been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is un- untested and untried? General?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents, and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He, he was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, ‘I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-’
Bob Schieffer: Well-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ‘ -it publicly.’ He hasn’t made those calls, Bob.
Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-
Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.
Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.
Bob Schieffer: Really?!
Corporate media whore Schieffer, an “old friend of Bush,” is jest workin’ hard to keep Republican fascists in power. Heck of a job, Bob.
Digg this now!
Pat Buchanan on MSNBC says the McCain campaign’s message has been indecisive, and he needs to clarify it tonight.
Republican Talking Point? A set-up to announce in post-debate “analysis” that McCain HAS clarified his message?
I don’t know, Buchanan doesn’t sound very strong for McCain. Now he’s saying the country has decided it wants to elect Obama.
Buchanan is another eratic old guy. When he gets on a rant you can’t stop him
I wonder whether Rachel will be in a position in the post-debate commentary to skewer Pat like she has been known to do.
I don’t think at this point that undecided voters want to see the moderator slant the debate unfairly in either candidate’s favor. To do so would insult their intelligence. If Sheieffer too obviously panders to McCain, on the Ayers nonquestion or anything else, it may boost Obama’s debate ratings.
Oh, I think Obama will do well enough in any case. My big question is how McCain gets out of his little dilemma, which won’t reflect in the debate response, but on the rest of his campaign and career.
Re Iran : read yesterday that the former prez Khatami, a moderate who tried to normalize relations with US, is confabbing with folks in Iran to run against ahmedinajad in next election. You can bet they won’t be mentioning that tonight, a move to the moderate center in Iran.
They will not be mentioning what Flynt (previously with the CIA, previously with the State Dept and the middle east desk director under the Bush administration and Hillary Mann Leverett (involved with different initiatives with Iran) and what they have to say about Iran. Flynt quit the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq
A Grand Bargain With Iran (if you have not listened to this one and half hours with Flynt and Hillary)
Steve Clemons at the New America Foundation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN8ymNEwR8Q
Sheiffer is just another white oldhead farting out his bum
There was an article in our “paper of record” this morning by John Kass of Chicago Trib. In our paper (ABQJournal) it was titled: Corrupt Chicago Machine Turning in Ayers Spin Cycle. The article is not up on ABQJ’s website (they’re always several days behind there), but it is up on Chigao Trib, titled: “Daley reins in radicals — the Chicago Way”.
I’m not familiar w/Kass, did a little googling… seems he’s been hammering this Obama “Chicago Machine” nexus for several years.
He makes several claims, wondering if anyone knows veracity thereof. In particular, citing “Obama fundraiser, strategist and public relations maven” Marilyn Katz. He says…
Is this accurate? Is Katz that “plugged in”?… or is this writer just making up stuff. Maybe he’s plugged in somewhere he’d rather not publicize?
I suggest we turn this thread in to a debate drinking game thread (or debate bingo if you prefer). Here are my suggestions:
Drink every time McCain says:
Risky
My friends
oversight and responsible regulation (the whole phrase)
Or, if you really want to get plastered, drink every time anybody says “Wall Street”.
What will they call the “bailout, rescue, investment”. I heard the bailout called all three but “investment” was only used for about a day.
Can we drink when they say “bailout”? Or “economic crisis”
How about every time Obama says ” middle class”
Sure have not heard anything about Vets living under bridges or the poverty in this nation since Edwards screwed himself
WO, you drink on “my friends,” you’ll need to be treated for alcohol poisoning. Ask anybody who drank on that during the LAST debate. Old Cranky Dude ran me right out of rum.
mr. emptywheel already told me I’m not allowed to drink no “my friends.”
I believe “the economy” will be the winner. I think it will be interesting to hear how they will refer to the “bailout” Someone important the other day called it the “recovery” plan.
“bailout,rescue,investment, recovery” No one calling it a debt
I am gonna puke if I hear Main Street one more time – we are human beings (oh and comapies are not human beings),
Main Street
In the pool halls, the hustlers and the losers
I used to watch ‘em through the glass
Well I’d stand outside at closing time
Just to watch her walk on past
Unlike all the other ladies, she looked so young and sweet
As she made her way alone down that empty street
Down on Mainstreet
And sometimes even now, when I’m feeling lonely and beat
I drift back in time and I find my feet
Down on Mainstreet
Down on Mainstreet
Can’t believe what I just saw on Hardball, Tweety asked McCain dude, is Obama a good American and the closed caption read:
“Is Barack Obama a good Arab-American?”
Are you sure?
Perhaps Barack ought to bring this up tonight:
Exclusive: Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch
Must be nice to be pampered.
Barack Obama must know this is coming. He also probably aware of the bias of the “moderator”. The critical point in the debate will be him deciding how to deal with it regardless of whether it comes from McCain or Schieffer. How did Obama prepare for and execute his response to this setup? That will tell a lot about how he has learned to debate over these last ten months. It should be a fascinating insight into how he anticipates and prepares for problems.
3 versions of Obama’s Hope and Vision:
A Change Is Gonna Come:
Sam Cooke:
http://current.com/items/89406…..gonna_come
Patti LaBelle:
http://current.com/items/89408…..gonna_come
The Supremes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDpr8wHdhlQ
I have thought the worn theme of grinding on an episode three decades past a fairly transparent ploy to divert attention from current events. McCain has ties to the Iran-Contra subliminal war machine, ask McCain to comment on Amy Goodman’s interview of ONorth wherein the tiredPatriot avers illicit funding mechanisms were justified and congress deserved to be ignored and it was not criminal at all because the end justified the means even lawless means. Another counterthrust would be to elicit McCain reactions to the storyline in Born Under a Bad Sky which discusses several presidents’ ways to circumvent environmental law in a case involving indigenous peoples sites, one in AZ, namely, the construction of an astronomy observatory at a place called Mt. Graham, reportedly a topic that precipitated McCain’s fuse to burn and explode; the audio clip by the author narrator describes battery upon an advocacy organization representative during an interview of McCain. These are all riposte minded strategies, perhaps best managed carefully. For simplicity, I liked the voter demographic data on NPR this morning, simply revealing the staunchly Republican neighborhood where the debate will take place this evening on Long Isl. this year has registered predominantly Democratic.
OT — Testimony that some of Toobz’ house bills got hid. That’s gotta hurt.
OT — JJ shocked, shocked to find WH has withheld torture authorization memo or memos; Kit sez move along folks, nuthin’ new to see here. I dunno, maybe it’s just me but I still smell the Prada smell of a jilted and vindictive Condi all over this thing.
Shieffer, Brokaw, Gibson are considered the cream of the crop of U.S. commentators. That is in reality an indictment of a flawed and failed 4th Estate. All three are deserving of spending more time with their respective families. Tired, trite and tedious is the best description for these clowns.
Yeh. Rich and thick.
(h/t The Talented Mr. Ripley)
Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has one journalist defending Bill Ayers:
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..34543.html
I have to say Bob Schieffer is doing a lot better than I expected.
I spoke too soon. Schieffer still sucks.
Heh, trust your first instinct.