WorldNetLefty says "source" said McCain said "c" word

I'm familiar with the so-called "allegations" about McCain calling his wife the "c" word in 1992, and although I hadn't checked with WorldNetDaily to see if they're repeated there, I'm not sure they're even up to that level of "journalism."

But today I saw (on a FireDogLake YouTube video linked by Gateway Pundit) that a professional operative posing as a minister managed to work the "c" word into a question for McCain at a town hall meeting. (Link via Glenn Reynolds.)

It would be one thing if this were a legitimate issue. But this is pure nonsense, and I found myself wondering what the reaction would have been had a right wing operative asked Barack Obama about the ridiculous sex-and-drugs-with-the-gay-prostitute "story."

The McCain campaign has already done what I don't think they needed to do, and denied the allegations:

Campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker told U.S. News that both stories are "untrue and driven by partisan interests and blind sources."

But the liberal blogosphere--if not mainstream media publications--has been abuzz with the allegations, particularly after they were picked up yesterday by the popular Huffington Post, to which Schecter is an occasional contributor. Nico Pitney, a Huffington Post editor, told U.S. News that "we noted in our report on the book that the story was anonymously sourced; we wanted our readers to be aware of that."

"As with any such reporting--whether it's in the New York Times, a Bob Woodward book, or an account from Cliff Schecter--people have to consider the information critically and make up their own minds," he said.

Schecter, for his part, says he hopes that the bulk of his book, which details McCain's evolving positions over the years on issues ranging from military interventionist policy to tax cuts, doesn't get lost in the hubbub over temper allegations. And he adamantly defends his sourcing: "I'm as comfortable with those facts as with any other fact in my book," he told U.S. News. An effort to arrange to speak with Schecter's sources was unsuccessful, though the author described in some detail the positions held by the sources at the time of the alleged incidents and their whereabouts today.

"I'm an unknown quantity, and the sources in the two stories are unnamed," said Schecter, a senior fellow at Working America, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. "But they are true." Says Hazelbaker, McCain's spokesperson: "I hope that the Democrats follow the blueprint laid out by Mr. Schecter, as it will almost certainly guarantee John McCain's victory in November. One thing that is absolutely clear is that Americans are sick and tired of this type of gutter politics."

I'm sorry, but this is not a story. I'm sick and tired of so-called "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources, because they are not sources at all. They do not rise to the level of an accusation that merits being denied.

Once again, let me point out what shouldn't need pointing out at all: anyone can make anything up about anyone.

I've complained repeatedly about WorldNetDaily reporting paranoid conspiracy claims as news, but Cliff Schecter's standards do not even rise to the level of WorldNetDaily. At least when WND reported the ridiculous story of a man who claimed to have shared sex and cocaine with Barack Obama, they gave the name of the "witness." And it was up to people to decide whether to believe him. (He eventually failed a lie detector test and was discredited.) But here there isn't even an accuser whose credibility can be evaluated and tested; just an ardent left wing writer who claims there is, and who plugs his book as "proof" each time.

Schecter, the accuser (a guy who snarks that Republicans can't read) sloppily recites conspiracy theories based on things on the radio he is unable to recall:

If I remember correctly, the host went on to say that -- especially based on recent reports of news outlet complicity in the military analyst scandal -- they are feeling a potential threat should Obama get elected. If he goes after BushCo, the media would be implicated, too.

To avoid that possibility, they have to eliminate Obama.

The media want to "eliminate" Obama because he might "go after" Bush if elected (criminal prosecutions for war crimes) and this might spill over to a media scandal?

Hmmm.....

In a post titled "Group that wants Bush to be "President-for-Life" linked to Bush Administration itself," Schecter promoted the paranoid conspiracy claim that a right wing clique linked to Dick Cheney (who else?) wanted Bush to kill all Arabs in Iraq, populate it with Americans, so that the military would love Bush, who would then become president -- forever and ever! Here's a partial quote in italics (with Schecter's reactions in plain text):

That valuable historic example? Julius Caesar.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results...

Eyebrows raised yet?

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

Mine are. Raised, that is.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Putting the rather strange Caesar analogies aside, the author of the above (soon pulled from the FSM site) was not only an embarrassment to FSM, but he's clearly a crackpot. The point it, it isn't hard to find nuts (whether of the left wing or the right wing variety) writing nutty things in places that shouldn't have let them, but does Schecter seriously believe there ever was any such a plot by Dick Cheney, Laura Ingraham, and Frank Gaffney? He either does (in which case he's an unreliable paranoid conspiracy theorist) or he does not (in which case he's dishonest). Either way, I don't trust him.

Once again, this guy strikes me as a loopy WorldNetDaily-of-the-left type. Such people are certainly free to speculate about whatever nonsense they want, but to take someone like that at his word that McCain talked dirty to his wife because "sources" he won't name said so is very foolish.

People are gullible, though, and they have a way of falling for what they want to believe.

That's what made P.T. Barnum and Ann Coulter rich.

posted by Eric on 05.02.08 at 07:56 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6614






Comments

"But the liberal blogosphere--if not mainstream media publications--has been abuzz with the allegations, particularly after they were picked up yesterday by the popular Huffington Post, to which Schecter is an occasional contributor."
Looks the HuffPo may have more than just a casual relationship with the story. Gateway Pundit has screen shots of the registration sheets, which show Marty Parrish and (putative?) videographer Keith Dismons listing their affiliation as the Huffington Post.

JM Hanes   ·  May 3, 2008 12:20 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits