Posted on 04/01/2007 11:05:53 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Here's the REST of the story ...
By Bob Cusack
March 30, 2007
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday that there is “not a shred” of truth to claims that he was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001.
On Sean Hannity’s radio show, McCain said Democrats approached him about leaving the GOP, but denied any suggestion that he engaged in serious discussions to become an Independent.
The Hill Thursday reported that former members of Congress, including Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D), claimed that McCain nearly left the Republican Party before Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) did so in May of 2001. In a statement provided by his 2008 campaign in that article, McCain said he never considered the leaving his party.
Asked by the conservative pundit whether there is any truth to the assertions made in the article by Daschle and former Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.), McCain responded, “Not a shred. Not a shred.”
The White House hopeful questioned why, if the events occurred the way Democrats described them, the story had not been reported in the six intervening years.
“Why did it take six years for this information to ?” he asked.
The senator did not address that Daschle mentions the issue in a book published in 2003.
“Look,” McCain said on the radio show, “I was approached by Democrats, sure. I was approached by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to run as his running mate in 2004 and I rejected it out of hand.”
Laughing, McCain added, “It was the smartest thing I ever did.”
Now that was comedy! (your post #12)
McCain has said he would not run with Kerry, but last month he renewed speculation when he was asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" whether he would consider running with Kerry. He replied, "Obviously, I would entertain it."
So who do we believe? John McCain or John McCain???
Well, unfortunately for Drudge, this story has turned out to be less of a siren special and more like one of his many lead balloons. As in, it didn’t fly. For instance:
1. There are actually two videos of McCain’s news conference. In neither one is Michael Ware heckling or even asking a question.
2. At the very end of the appearance, you can see Ware raise his hand to ask a question. At that point, McCain closed the press conference and left, without even allowing Ware to speak. That is exactly what Ware said this morning when interviewed, saying he was not called upon to speak.
3. Strike three: there is a video of the Maher interview. In it, you can see that Maher made a joke, Ware responding by making a joke about drinking as a way to deal with being in Iraq for four years.
4. At the same time that the videos were posted, Drudge yanked the story, and it is now in the bowels of his archives. No explanation, no correction, no apology. Nada. Just another of Matt’s “specials,” based on a rumor passed to him. Garbage in, garbage out.
Goebbells would be proud of you for that piece of propaganda. McManiac is no conservative.
The horror!
He is a big boy, working 24/7/365 in a political campaign against this President and the US in Iraq, not to mention being a hack for Hezbollah and the Taliban, a smidgen of his own medicine won’t kill him.
To whomever leaked to Drudge, I say, hear! hear!
Unlike you Bushbots, I don't despise your standard bearer; rather, despite being a decent man, I think him a bumbler much like Jimmy Carter. If you ask me if I believe John McCain is an SOB, I would concur. But an SOB is what we need now, IMHO, to win the GWOT (i.e. history is full of SOBs who were successfulL: MacArthur, Halsey, Patton, Sherman, Grant, Stonewall Jackson, James K. Polk, Andrew Jackson, et al) Nice guys finish last as in "Mission Accomplished!"
Who would you rather have choosing your next 2 Supreme Court justices...?
It sounds to me like you are just manifesting your dislike for Bush and his supporters into a love for McCain. I don't even think you can make a post without using the term "bushbot". But since McCain is such a great guy, can you explain CFR? How about the gang of 14? Or maybe his protection of terrorists from "torture"?
9 out of 10 FReepers can't be wrong. McCain is all about McCain, not conservatism. If he was, you would be selling me all his great accomplishments. Instead, you try to pump up McCain by tearing down Bush. Basically, you have nothing sell McCain on (unless he ran as a Democrat).
Heck, lets go all the way back. I remember when McCain was the only Republican among the Keating 5.
Should he somehow manage to gain the nomination, I assure everyone that the Dems will, too, and we’ll get to hear the “culture of corruption” Big Lie for another election season.
Sad, but true.
Ware is still a idiot. He’s just not an idiot because of this (non-) story.
The story is now more about Drudge, than Ware.
...”why would I?” Sean, he said, “I’m a Republican!”
***************************************************************************************************
He lied again.
Sorta like "heckuva job"? "Harriet Myers is extremely qualified"? "Protection of our borders is foremost"? or "Mission Accomplished"?
Do you all remember back when CNN admitted that when Saddam was still in power CNN’s reporters held back from reporting the truth of what was going on because they would have been kicked out of the country or worse. So what is CNN and Michael Ware’s excuse now??? I know I am stating the obvious, but really, why doesn’t someone keep drilling this point home? CNN and Ware are traitors (except for a select few like Glenn Beck). If the Conservatives & REpubs don’t step it up, and go on the Offense, we will all be bowing to Queen Shrillary.
Who ranks higher with you? The old mean and crazy guy from Arizona or the less old, more mean and lots more crazy guy from Virginia?
The story is now more about Drudge, than Ware.
 |
When Matt Drudge reported that CNN reporter Michael Ware heckled Senator John McCain at his press conference after taking a leisurely, uneventful stroll in the streets of Baghdad, a number of blogs and even newspapers picked up the story. But now some people are backing off the report, leaving the damaging impression that Drudge just made it up. Even if it turns out that Drudge was right, no matter how many corrections are run it will still be impossible for Drudge to completely regain his reputation. I think it's incredibly irresponsible to let this smear against Matt Drudge fester before all the evidence is in. No one has unequivocally disproved Drudge's story and to imply otherwise is unfair to Drudge.
When Drudge ran his story about Ware (which seems to have disappeared from his server for some reason but can be seen in the picture above), there didn't seem to be any reason to doubt it. Drudge based his story on a very reliable anonymous source whose credentials no one had questioned and who didn't appear to have an axe to grind. "An official at the press conference called Ware's conduct 'outrageous,' saying, 'here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter,'" Drudge wrote.
And the story certainly sounded true. Ware was the reporter who said, "I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about" when McCain said there were many safe neighborhoods in Iraq, and Drudge's report, based on an impeccable anonymous source, seemed to confirm the impression many people already had that Ware's reporting was biased. "Ah, professionalism," commented Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit about Ware's biased, unsourced reporting. "Maybe it is time for CNN to find a reporter that can function sober," Lorie Bird at Wizbang wrote. "Maybe Ware was drunk; that would be consistent with his own description of how he spends his time in Baghdad," John Hinderaker at Powerline said charitably. "But he is an extreme manifestation of an all too common phenomenon--the journalist as advocate rather than neutral observer." Blackfive commented, "I don't have any evidence that Michael Ware was ever hinged, but he is certainly Unhinged now," adding that Ware has spent "four years lying drunk under his bed in his Green Zone." Rodger Morrow called Ware "a useful idiot" and Ace of Spades, writing from his parents' basement, said that Ware has "trouble seeing" that the surge is working "from the lounge at the Intercontinental Hotel."
Then the left-wing smear machine kicked in. Ware unsurprisingly denied that he had heckled anyone. Inconclusive video seemed to show that Ware was silent throughout the press conference, which abruptly ended when Ware raised his hand to ask a question. Of course, it's very possible that Ware heckled McCain very quietly when the camera wasn't on him and everyone knows from the Rodney King case that videos can give false impressions. As Say Anything points out the video doesn't prove Ware didn't heckle McCain beyond a reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is on Ware to show that Drudge's anonymous, unimpeached source was lying.
Some liberals even claimed Drudge's anonymous source had an agenda even though no one could know for sure whether he had an agenda or not since no one knew who the source was! Many attacked the messenger, claiming that Drudge had gotten so many stories wrong before, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of his stories have turned out to be true.
Although Paul Meringoff at Powerline bravely said that Ware's denial was itself "enough to condemn him as unfit to cover the war," other conservative bloggers began to cut and run from Drudge caving in to fierce left-wing pressure. Some of those who originally reported story appended one-sentence updates all the way down at the ends of their pieces casting doubt on the story and Matt Drudge's reporting. They gave the false impression that Ware's denials were somehow equivalent to Drudge's impeccably researched article based on an unassailable anonymous source, reducing the story to a he said/she said argument.
Although Hinderaker at Powerline stuck to his guns about Ware being a drunk, he said, "Drudge owes his readers an explanation regarding his stance on the story," leaving the unfortunate impression that he was beginning to doubt the veracity of Drudge's reporting. Hot Air said the video "sort of" supports Ware, but pointed out it came from a Michael Ware fan site. Still, they pointedly refused to defend Drudge. Jules Crittenden said that even if this particular story was not true that doesn't mean the press isn't "pro-Al Qaeda" and reiterated that Ware is a "consort of terrorists," but unconscionably left Drudge out to dry. Lorie Bird at Wizbang also left the impression that Drudge's story was not technically true even though Ware is still a drunk. Rick Moran wrote, "One would have to say at this point that [Ware] is telling the truth - at least the truth as he perceives it to be," and added, "Perhaps he was drunk at the press conference," yet not only did he refuse to defend Drudge, he doesn't even mention Drudge at all in the post. (Correction: In the comments Mr. Moran points out this sentence in his post, which I somehow missed, although it just serves to confirm my main point about the unfair smearing of Drudge: "So it appears that Drudge doesn’t know what the word [heckling] means -- not surprising since it isn’t the first time his headlines have failed to jive with the story being reported." My apologies to Mr. Moran for the error.)
Reynolds appended an update to his original post that seemed to criticize Drudge and at the same time reduce his own responsibility for leaving any false impressions no matter how the story eventually turns out: "Looks like Drudge got burned, as, to a lesser degree, did those of us who relied on him." Then Reynolds went even further, writing a rather defensive post claiming that he doesn't "promise never to link to things that turn out not to be wrong," trying to wash his hands of all responsibility for casting doubt on Matt Drudge's reputation in case Drudge is vindicated. "I can't find where Drudge has retracted, but on this evidence I'm going with Ware over Drudge," was his weak conclusion. Don Surber also agreed that he was now going to believe Ware over Drudge, based apparently on the flip of a coin: "I'm going with Ware over Drudge. Them's the odds -- great editor, lousy reporter." Is that what the reputation of a fine reporter like Drudge hinges on--the odds?
It should be obvious that the people attacking Drudge are biased. And even if it turns out that Drudge made a mistake on this one story, is it fair to cast doubt on all the good reporting he has done and trash his reputation? Once a reputation is damaged, it can never be fully repaired. Some people will now always believe that Matt Drudge is a liar no matter how many times conservative bloggers unquestioningly link to him in the future. These bloggers should be embarrassed that they are perpetuating these smears of Drudge even as they cast doubt on Ware's veracity. They act as if they have no responsibility for smearing Drudge's good name, claiming that they are merely linking to stories attacking Drudge or posing questions as if they can't be bothered to do some cursory research on the answers to those questions or at least apply a smell test to allegations before they publish them. If these bloggers who are now sowing the seeds of doubt about Drudge's reporting abilities are not responsible for smearing him, then who is?
Interesting, and makes some good points.
Overall, it’s time to end all this “anonymous source” crap. On both sides of the reporting aisle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.