On the Tire Swing
Apparently on ABC this morning Mark Halperin was arguing that housegate would ultimately wind up being bad for . . . Barack Obama because . . . all news is good news for John McCain it “opened the door” to Rezko, Ayers, Wright and other attacks on Obama.
Not only is this silly in a first-order sense, the underlying premises that a door needs to be opened for McCain to deploy those kind of attacks is bizarre. Nothing was stopping the McCain campaign from “going there” with misleading Rezko- or Ayers-related arguments before this happened. They just weren’t doing it because they didn’t think it was the correct time, strategically, to raise those issues. But you’d have to be extraordinarily naive to believe that the McCain campaign was genuinely just not going to mention any of this stuff until Mean Ol’ Barack came along to make fun of the idea of being so rich that you can’t keep track of your mansions. And whatever you may say about Halperin, he’s not a naive guy.
67 Responses to “On the Tire Swing”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Curious: I saw the Ayers ad, which was supposedly rejected even by Fox, twice last night (Warner cable, central Ohio, on CNN and, I think, the USA network). Are the nets now showing it?
____________________________________________
August 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
He’s not naive; just in the tank for McCain. Like most of the MSM…who refuse to ever ask a substantive follow-up question of McCain & just let him lob factually incorrect bombs (because he was a POW in case you didn’t know because McCain never brings it up).
August 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
John McCain: I did not spend five years in the Hanoi Hilton…..
The American People: I don’t see any connection to Vietnam, John.
John McCain: Well, there isn’t a literal connection.
The American People: John, face it, there isn’t any connection….. Everything’s a fuckin’ travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about?
August 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mark Halperin is a goober of the first order. Seriously, some of the nonsense he posts on his site is just plain embarrassing. His whole “who won the week” thing may have some limited merit, but he never bases it on anything substantive, but rather just pulls a winner … usually McMansion … out of his hat. Time magazine really has a top-notch “journalist” with Mark. Boy, aren’t they proud.
PS: I wasn’t at all surprised this comment came on ABC. That is one network whose election news coverage has clearly gone down hill this cycle. ABC seems to be taking their cues from ‘ole Faux News now.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
This is where people who haven’t come around to the “rope-a-dope” theory don’t understand why it’s so effective: Obama still has TONS of ammo in the tank, and only 2 months to absolutely SATURATE the media with it. He’s saved up his cash, his message, and his rhetoric, and as of about three days ago (when McCain stepped in it), he’s starting to unload it.
Easy response to Ayers/Rezko: Charles Keating. Sure, it was 15 years ago, but McCain’s involvement was MUCH dirtier than anything Obama has even been near, and people remember the S&L scandal (especially those older voters). Hell, I was just watching an old re-run of “Growing Pains” the other day and even THEY had a Keating reference (boy, that show and the topical humor). Point is, McCain’s attacks aren’t so scary when you have even better counter attacks stashed away in the bank, and most of his attacks are old news at this point (thanks in no small part to Hillary).
When he pulls out a knife, you pull out a gun. (figuratively speaking) If Obama follows through, it’s game-over for McCain.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Big Lebowski … yes … John McCain is Walter Sobchack!
August 24th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Mark Halperin is not naive, eh? Then what, exactly are you saying he is? A paid operative of the McCain campaign? A paid operative of the right-wing noise machine? What? Cause I am thinking he is naive.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Far as I can make out, Halperin is actually a textbook case of liberal guilt, except that his noble savages are red-state whites instead of black folks or third-world denizens.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Mr. Halperin, at no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you come anywhere close to anything that could be described as a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to that. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I saw the clip of Halperin. Here’s the thing. Halperin is not the best guy out there fighting for McCain, issuing threats. He seems a little too tentative and unsure of himself. And then you have McCain trying to explain to Katie Couric how his soft and pampered lifestyle doesn’t leave him out of touch with real Americans, by using the same old POW excuse. The POW thing, besides getting old, is really starting to seem snivelly, if you ask me. These guys have gone soft. They’re in trouble.
Furthermore, I wonder how much of McCain’s household budget goes for massages and manicures and facials. You know some of it does. He’s been looking better lately. Botox, teeth whitening? And is he going to use the POW excuse for this too?
August 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
What you forget, Matt, is that none of McCain’s homes were acquired via corrupt means. Unlike how your guy got his with Rezko’s help.
So yes, if the media plays this straight, Obama is standing in a glass house throwing rocks – he’s playing class envy, but he’s sitting in corruption.
If McCain had done the same thing, you would be up in arms about it.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
No guy who own 13 houses should be leading anything that is other than totally recreational in nature.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
housegate will ultimately wind up being bad for . . . Barack Obama because McCain will name a homeless person as VP, balancing his xx homes while becoming the ‘in touch’ guy.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
My stomach turned at this as well. EVEN from Halperin, it really was a preposterous argument. And his McCain-philia was really showing. McCin makes the mother of blunders square in the wheelhouse of the biggest domestic issue, Obama doesn’t just let him off the hook, and that means that suddenly (but not previously) nothing is out of bounds, and Halperin sees it as his job to give the go-ahead to various specific lines of attack for McCain? What’s now in bounds for Obama? Age? It always should have been. Emotional stability? Dare I suggest…Vietnam record inconsistencies?
August 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
When it comes to a simple and easily understandable attack, “McCain doesn’t even know how many houses he owns” vs. the complex argument involving relatively unknown third parties with vague financial ties to the attacked candidate, the only people who will be swayed by the complex argument are the loyalists who wrote the argument to begin with.
Simple always beats nuanced in this day and age of 24 hour cable news. Just look at “Kerry married into $$$” vs. “The SEC investigation of Bush while his father was in the White House suggests his father’s role in the gov’t might have played a part in his exoneration of an otherwise shady financial transaction.”
The only time this sort of financial witch hunt has been even moderately successful was with Whitewater, where after wasting millions upon millions of tax payer dollars, the GOP couldn’t pin a thing on the Clintons, but inadvertently stumbled upon a lie about a blowjob in the process. So unless the GOP has a stained dress in the closet, I’d suggest they drop the Rezko thing before they waste too much time and money.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
It’s a tactical move: McCain was obviously going to go negative anyway (and already has), but now the campaign (which apparently icludes Mark Halperin) can claim Obama started it, and forced them to do so. That helps to keep the Maverick’s hands clean, no matter how low he goes.
Of course, no matter what the issue was, at some point Obama was going to attack McCain, and the McCain people were going to whine about it and start slinging mud. The important thing is to have an excuse to do so, no matter how flimsy. Like the way the GOP felt entitled to lie about Kerry’s war record, simply because he said he was “reporting for duty” when he accepted the nomination.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
As a liberal, I fully support the GOP going full steam ahead on the Rezko issue. Dedicate all your time and money to it, please. Nuanced land deals involving ten foot wide strips of land and complex professional and financial relationships really resonate with the average low-information voter.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
What does “on the tire swing” mean?
August 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Jim-Bob’s a fascinating character study, isn’t he? Pure distilled essence of white flight, just as Halperin is pure distilled essence of Village.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The MSM is all about ad sales. It’s not about reporting, it’s not even about making sense, it’s about selling the GM Employee Discount and McDonald’s Southern-Style Chicken sandwiches.
No matter the sport, a game that is a blowout from the first period is one that loses viewers. No matter the story, a drama whose ending is known in the first act loses viewers. Even if you’re a big fan of the winner or enamored of the show, you stop viewing when all that’s left to see is predictable.
A lopsided playoff is bad for ratings, so is a lopsided presidential election. That’s why pointing out that McCain is out-of-touch with reality is “a risk” for Obama and therefore good for McCain, because otherwise the story is going to be about a blowout, and that doesn’t sell advertising.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
To the credit of the rest of the panel, they all gave Halperin a big WTF?!!?? when he said that.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
hedgie:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118076?tid=relatedcl
August 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
James Robertson, the American people demand attacks and ridicule on a candidate who married a rich heiress and mockery of his laziness and inability to keep track of his houses. They don’t much care for legal real estate transactions for which there was no quid pro quo.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I would really like someone to investigate whether some “reporters” are taking bribes. I find it hard to believe that Armstrong Williams was the only media person taking payola. I’m starting to think that he was the only one who got caught.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
go ahead, james, and tell us exactly – in precise detail, supported by facts – what was “corrupt” about obama’s buying his house. we can hardly wait, since it will, of course, be a first for you.
as for the broader question, i’m with cap and gown: i think halperin is naive, not in the traditional sense of the term, but in the sense that he actually believes all this stupid piffle that he shovels out.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Little-know fact: Hackperin rents one of McCain’s innumerable condos.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I watched that clip thinking a big “wtf”, and that Mark Halperin has to be vying for biggest hack with that nonsense.
Anyway, thank you John Emerson, for a big LOL, and for distilling John McCain to his essence: Walter Sobchak. The only apparent difference between the two is that one married a wealthy WASP heiress, and the other converted to Judaism…
August 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Fixed.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
People who think that Obama buying his mansion with the help of a convicted felon is complicated are deluded.
The only nuance comes when you try to make Obama look good.
(I”m not saying Obama did anything illegal, just that he did something that stinks badly. Very stupid)
August 24th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
When you’ve said something that elicits veritable roars of disapproval in defense of a Democrat from Cokie and Georgie, you’ve slung some stinky, stinky bullshit, my friends.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’ve long wondered why Keating hasn’t become an issue–while it was 20 years ago, it was kind of a direct bribe, with money laundering through Cindy.
I guess it’s a little unfair insofar as they were cleared of wrongdoing, but Cindy was caught with a ton of illegal money.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
The two biggest losers of this election cycle, media-wise:
1. Halperin
2. Jay Carney
Hopelessly in the tank for McCain, the both of them.
Halperin is a classic case of an elite journalist — son of a Harvard prof/Washington insider and a law school administrator, Bethesda upbringing, Harvard education — who thinks his role in the media makes him the great diviner of the moods and opinions of the commonfolk. Of course, the typical voter, having been bombarded by the “celebrity” ads, knows that McCain went on character-based attacks first. One would have thought that the McCain campaign would have realized this when they decided to roll out the ads so aggressively, but at least they have their apologists in the press to explain away their strategic errors.
By the way, the strategic errors of the McCain campaign — tire gauge jokes, initiating of personal attacks, inconsistency surrounding whether Obama is weak and unpatriotic or arrogant and calculating — are starting to add up. By throwing the kitchen sink at Obama so early, they’re really asking the voter to buy into a narrative that’s full of contradictions and fallacies. In a close election, I’ll take the campaign that doesn’t underestimate the intelligence of its target audience 9 times out of 10.
Other than Chris Matthews’ mind-boggling contention that “how many houses do you own?” is a question asked to people coming out of comas to make sure they’re functioning properly, Halperin has interpreted the house-counting debacle in the most peculiar way.
August 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ponder if you will how ridiculous it is that Halperin says that they’re going to claim that Obama got a sweetheart mortgage deal from Rezko as a response to the claim that McCain has too many houses to count. Obama didn’t get a sweetheart mortgage deal. It’s already been proven that he paid market rate. I don’t understand what all the fuss is.
August 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
markl, of course, when obama bought his house, rezko was not a convicted felon, but why let a little fact-based matter stand in the way of your assertions? they sound so much better when asserted the way you do, and that’s really all that counts, isn’t it?
August 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Halperin is not naive, he is an idiot (and a republican).
August 24th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Anythinh that puts Magoo on the defensiv is a good thing.The more the merrier. If suckwds like Halperin claim they’re counter=productive -you know they’re working.
August 24th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Howard, Rezko was under investigation during second deal at least. I don’t see how your distinction without a difference helps Obama in the least, but we’ll see.
By the way, is the Philly Hebrews Howard?
August 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
In re: McCain’s habit of bringing up that he was a POW to duck any issue, I just see an SNL skit on this (which will then become BIG TIME water cooler fodder).
I’m surprised the McCain people aren’t aware of this risk.
August 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
How is McCain able to use the POW thing at all? He wasn’t JUST a POW: he was a POW who cooperated, repeatedly, with his captors.
August 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
@37
The “second deal” involved a small strip of land for which Obama paid Rezko about the appraised value. I believe Rezko requested something slightly above the appraisal price for this 10-foot parcel and Obama paid that price.
He since admitted the seeming impropriety of engaging in a financial deal with a contributor to his Senate campaign. But the fact remains, this “Rezko bought Obama a house” business boils down to Obama giving money to Tony Rezko in exchange for a 10-foot parcel of land, after having an independent appraisal.
It’s been established that for the purchase of the property on which his house sits, he paid full market value to the owners himself, and Tony Rezko’s only involvement was a walk-through appraisal.
So let’s go over it again: this scandal involved Obama giving Rezko a minuscule amount of money for a minuscule parcel of land. Hate to break it to you, but influence peddling requires politicians getting money for no apparent reason, not paying cash out for a legitimate transaction with a regrettably illegitimate man. It’s simple. Obama did not get money. He did not give favors.
Fortunately for McCain, the heterogamy of marrying into wealth is not treated as a shady financial transaction involving money and power. It’s love, love, love. Also: Cindy was the first beautiful face John saw after five years as a POW. Who could blame him?
August 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
markl, surely you can tell the difference between claiming that obama bought a house with the help of a convicted felon and the reality that obama bought a tiny parcel of land at an independently appraised value from a neighbor who was under a grand jury investigation, so why pretend that no one else can?
you started by claiming something not true, you backed down to a second version of events which still wasn’t accurately put: maybe you should stop digging.
PS. i’m not sure what your “philly hebrews” reference but if it’s to the early ’30s basketball team, yes, i wear a t-shirt with their logo, which i believe i have mentioned before somewhere along the way….
August 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Howard,
It is true that Obama bought the house with Rezko’s help.
In a technical, legal sense, it may not be true that Rezko “helped” Obama, since there was reportedly one other bid on the side lot. But to the average person, it appears that Rezko aided Obama in the purchase of him home.
In fact, he toured the house with Obama before Obama bought it.
There’s also a question about where Rezko’s wife came up with the money to buy the land, since IIRC Rezko was in serious financial trouble at the time.
Like I said, apparently Obama did nothing illegal, but the appearance of getting aid from a scumbag who later was convicted of bribery is obvious. Regardless of the technicalities, it speaks poorly of Obama’s judgment on character, as he himself said.
If you have Philly Hebrews cap, then we met for drinks in Dec. 83 at the V.I. (I think that’s the right date) when you had a newborn. I hope your kid is doing well, if that’s you.
I’m very disappointed in this election year. I think Obama is the weakest, least distinguished Democratic candidate for President I have ever seen. I know that many other voters, both Democratic and Independent, are equally mystified by the hoopla. Likewise, I know that many are quite excited.
I don’t think Obama has a prayer to win in November—but then, I’m not great at political predictions. In fact, I’m so bad at it, I ought to get paid like some other famous always-wrong blowhards.
August 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Obama bought a ten foot strip of land next to his house from the guy who owned it, and paid market value. The guy got into legal trouble for something else later.
Is that really it? I keep hearing Republicans threaten to talk about this. Is this what they’re talking about? That must explain why they always threaten to talk about it, but don’t actually…you know…talk about it.
Remember when they were going to talk about Al Gore’s book in 2000? You’d better watch out! We’re gonna talk about this. Yep, any minute now, and boy, it’s gonna be bad. Here we go. I’m gonna start talking about it now. Everyone? Hello? Pay attention to me!
August 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
but now the campaign (which apparently icludes Mark Halperin) can claim Obama started it, and forced them to do so.
It’s too late for that. The public already believes, correctly, that McCain has been running a dirty campaign and Obama has not. Polling has already confirmed it.
The public isn’t going to buy Halperin’s twisted BS any more than Conventional Cokie did this morning.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Ok… In a time where housing foreclosures are at a 30 year high and with Fannie and Freddie needing bailouts, etc, etc… Let’s go… Rezko vs Keating… Do they really want to go there? Or maybe the McCain campaign can come up with a Keating explanation that involves his POW status.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Halerpin isn’t naive? Don’t know about that. At any rate, he seems to be engaged in a game of logical Twister to prove to Hugh Hewitt that he’s not a liberal, which apparently entails that he really buy into every right-wing talking point he hears.
I wonder if Mark Halerpin thought that McCain making suggestions about Obama’s elitism was dangerous because it “opened the door” to some mention of McCain’s massive wealth through marriage.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Mark Halperin IS NOT NAIVE. Period. He has an agenda. He isn’t so stupid as to think John McCain and Steve Schmidt and the Swift Boaters weren’t going to drive their Hummers through those open doors anyway.
What Halperin is: a self-loathing member of the media elite, who overcompensates for his privileged upbringing and basic agreement with Dem policy views and lack of any real ties to the “true” America, the mythical working class middle America that he thinks he is representing by deciding (perhaps only semi-consciously) that his role is to make up for the supposed liberal political media (the straight media, not just pundits) by putting a finger on the other side of the scale.
However, Halperin is also too dumb to put his finger on the scale in a way that doesn’t leave massive fingerprints, in the form of such easily mockable claims as this one. Someone smarter would have gone with a more plausible justification for McCain, not something so brazenly ridiculous. It’s the exact same thing David Brooks does, perhaps just slightly less obviously and more successfully.
He probably self-justifies (if he does so at all) by seeing it as a way to represent the viewpoint of the conservative portion of the country and to make up for the supposed lack of conservative voices in the traditional media (which the right has obviously already been tremendously successful in doing all by itself).
I think some of the success of the blogosphere is in reaction to not being able to force traditional media publications to fire hacks like Halperin.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
@hedgie
It’s a Josh Marshallism. It’s the image of reporters happily riding along with whatever silliness John McCain puts out. It’s a reference to this post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/210102.php
Watch the video to get the reference.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Hi, I can
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:39 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:44 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I was searching for this tooth advice on this all day.I am glad I found you on google. I bookmarked your blog! I’ll be back to read more of you blogs in the near future.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
nice post.. keep it up
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Incredible site! viagra
April 11th, 2009 at 11:29 am
FANTASTIC!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me.
viagra