After it was revealed that there was an undisclosed relationship between the Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier, Karl Rove and John McCain’s campaign, and the documented bias shown by the AP since Fournier took over, you would think they would at least make an effort to put out an unbiased story. You would be wrong.
Yesterday Associated Press writer Charles Babington wrote what was ostensibly an article critical of John McCain, but in reality Babington bent over backwards to minimize and explain away McCain’s problem with “details.”
At times McCain can appear to be short on details. In some instances, he has made misstatements or eyebrow-raising comments during the long days of campaigning in front of cameras and microphones. Sympathetic listeners call them understandable slips of the tongue and question whether any candidate can know everything. Opponents call them gaffes, or worse.
Babington follows with a statement from McCain’s spokesman and the news that there are websites dedicated to making lists of Obama’s misstatements before getting back to the point of the article.
Some of McCain's remarks seem to stem from his generally breezy nature and occasional tendency to leave details to subordinates.
I’ll skip Babington’s six paragraphs about McCain’s position on an affirmative action referendum in Arizona and go right to McCain’s breezy take on Viagra versus birth-control pills.
"I don't know what I ..." McCain said. He rubbed his face while looking thoughtful. "I'll look at my voting record on it. But I have — I don't recall the vote right now. But I'll be glad to look at it."
McCain was looking thoughtful? You be the judge. At this point a journalist might mention what McCain's voting record on the issue is, but apparently Babington has a breezy nature too. Instead he does a packed little paragraph of other details McCain has been short on, mentioning his Czechoslovakia gaffes, and:
He also implied that the so-called "Sunni Awakening" in Iraq occurred after President Bush announced plans in 2006 for a surge in U.S. troops, when in fact it began several months before.
Now I'll give McCain a pass on his Czechoslovakia problem...after all, he spent the first 57 years of his life calling it that, but I won't give Babington a pass on that dismissive, revisionist description of McCain's mistake about the timing of the Anbar Awakening and the surge. McCain didn't imly that the Anbar Awakening happened after George Bush announced the surge in 2007 (not 2006...details, Charles, details), he said it:
Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.
And when McCain was called on it? He defended his remarks and to this day maintains that he wasn't wrong. And of course Babington forgets to mention the three separate occassions where McCain showed that he either forgot, didn't know, or lied about Iran, Shiites and Sunnis. Those are two examples where McCain has shown an appalling lack of understanding about fundamental elements of the war that he claims to be an expert on, yet Babington ignores one, downplays the other and tells us that John McCain has a breezy nature.
Babington finishes with thoughts from a professor at George Washington University, who is "amazed" that politicians don't misspeak more often and warns that Democrats need to be careful about making McCain's age an issue. And while it's tempting to mock that concern for Democrats, I'll instead point out that Babington dug up a speechwriter for EISENHOWER to warn the Democrats not to make an issue of McCain's age. It's the only funny thing about this article.