Read that and lost my breakfast. Cohen=wanker.

Shorter Vapid Mainstream Punditry - It's ok for McCain to flipflop now because he has a reputation for being an upright guy and not flipflopping, and going back on that reputation won't hurt him. Dean Broder said so, don't bother him about it.

What Cohen actually said was that John McCain has what used to be called character. Liberals who grew up in the age of Clinton have no idea what character is. Cohen, no conservative, has observed Obama long enough to have discerned that the man has no core. He will do and say whatever it takes to get elected.

Obama flip-flops and panders, too. He did so on campaign finance reform, on Jeremiah Wright, on Iran, on Iraq, and on a myriad of other issues.

The real issue is change.

Do we want more Bush-Obama Big Government spending? Liberals try to deny that Bush increased non-defense domestic spending, but they ignore that he signed into law the Prescription Drug Act, which increased healthcare spending by tens of billions of dollars, and No Child Left Behind, which more than doubled the budget of the Department of Education.

Obama stands for more of the same failed economic liberalism that we have seen under Bush.

Obama says that Bush, who increased non-defense domestic spending more than any President since L.B.J., did not increase spending enough.

McCain, on the other hand, wisely believes Bush has increased Big Government too much. Unlike Obama, McCain does not share the Washington insider's perspective on spending, which is that too much is never enough.

Change, also, takes courage. McCain has shown that courage in his opposition to pork barrel spending. Obama, however, seems to think that voting "present" is equivalent toward taking a stand.

mhr - you forgot the hyperlink. Here:

He will do and say whatever it takes to get elected.

Always happy to help.

Cohen is a whore. Once you realize that, all becomes clear. His ability to form and defend a coherent column vanished about 10 years ago.

It's total bullshit, the idea that McCain stayed in captivity for some selfless or patriotic reason, and the notion that his connection who visited the Vietnamese captors certainly could've gotten him out. Try figuring that one out. It doesn't actually make sense, and that's why people just claim he did something heroic without trying to explain how the act of heroism worked.

He probably didn't try asking the connection to try to get him out because he didn't think of it, or assumed it was futile. The idea that any man who was tortured, held for years as a POW, and might never go home would willingly stay there for any reason less than collusion with the enemy, or in some extremely unlikely circumstance where it was absolutely necessary to save someone else's life, is totally absurd and fictional. McCain should stop benefitting from this one.

Obama . . . has no core. He will do and say whatever it takes to get elected.

This from the man whose candidate has abandoned everything he once stood for (with the possible exception of genocide).

John McCain is a fraud on this one, as are media personalities who repeat the story, and people should start to say so.

Do we have anything other than McCain's word that he did not "flip-flop" in captivity. If the strategy of the Vietnamese was to have prisoners go on camera to denounce the United States, to refuse is not to valiantly avoid flip-flopping, it is to follow orders. To acceded to their wishes would functionally be treason. So because McCain refused to commit treason, he is allowed to choose contradictory tax cut positions at his leisure. Cohen also implies, very obliquely and you have to think it through, that were Obama captive of the Vietnames he'd have committed treason. To imply that Obama does not have that wall is beyond disgusting.

Do we want more Bush-Obama Big Government spending?

The complete, utter shamelessness of this is astonishing.

Shorter Richard Cohen: It's OK for John McCain to pander and flip-flop today because 40 years ago he refused to pander or flip-flop to his North Vietnamese captors. Bugger that!

Fixed.

John McCain, man of integrity.

Yup.

When John McCain returned from Vietnam, he found that his wife had been involved in a serious car accident, and had lost her looks. She has, since the accident, had about 25 surgeries.

So, being the man of integrity that he is, he immediately divorced her, leaving her in charge of four children and facing surgery. He then married a hot young slut that he was currently fucking in violation of his marriage vows. He had it all: the false impression of integrity, a hot blond slut 20 years his junior, no crippled wife, no kids to hamper him, and 100 million dollars.

Yep, John McCain, man of integrity.

Cindy McCain sure looks like she was a fun little piece of ass then. Can't blame John. Who wants a crippled wife? What good is that?

I see we have a new troll.

B Lair.

Actually, it's a troll with spelling problems. His name actually is

B Liar

Anything McCain has said or done, and there's plenty, that diverges from the image he's fostered in the Washington media world will be disappeared, discounted, or diminished. (Anything Obama does that falls short of perfection will be discussed and decried and tut-tutted over for endless news cycles.) McCain's real base is the insider political press corps. He's courted and played to them for years, and his campaign is expecting it to pay off now. So far, it's looking like it might work out that way. Cohen isn't the only prominent press guy asking us to ignore our own lyin' eye.

Anything McCain has said or done, and there's plenty, that diverges from the image he's fostered in the Washington media world will be disappeared, discounted, or diminished. (Anything Obama does that falls short of perfection will be discussed and decried and tut-tutted over for endless news cycles.) McCain's real base is the insider political press corps. He's courted and played to them for years, and his campaign is expecting it to pay off now. So far, it's looking like it might work out that way. Cohen isn't the only prominent press guy asking us to ignore our own lyin' eyes.

Sorry about the double post--unintentional.

POed Lib,

You can look in the federal budgets for the past eight years and see that I am not a liar.

Then again, we should not be surprised that economic liberals are denying the truth that Bush's failed economic policies were liberal economic policies.

If they admitted that this was true, then the central message of their campaign-that Bush did not increase domestic spending enough-would fall apart.

So the liberals pretend that the Prescription Drug Act never existed. So liberals pretend that No Child Left Behind did not dramatically increase the Department of Education's budget. So liberals pretend that Bush did not increase foreign aid spending to Africa.

What these economic liberals must realize is that, while they may be able to fool some of the people sometimes, they will not be able to fool the people who have examined the federal budgets for the past eight years.

During the 2000 campaign, Richard Cohen wrote an entire column complaining about a speech that Joe Lieberman gave about the role of "faith" in politics. Cohen had quite a lot to say about how this speech reflected poorly on the Democratic ticket.

It turned out that the speech that Cohen quoted and complained about in his column was not made by Joe Lieberman, but by George W. Bush.

Cohen appended a terse one-sentence "correction" at the end of his next column.

Richard Cohen is a clown, and a lazy clown at that, and nothing he writes should be taken seriously.

because 40 years ago he refused to pander or flip-flop to his North Vietnamese captors

Except he did, my friends. He did.

B Lair,
Can you point me to where McCain criticized Bush the liberal lately? I guess McCain is just a big liberal too.

Because the lesson of the Bush years is: "Hey, it doesn't matter what decisions the guy actually makes while he's in office. What matters is if you LIKE him. If you really, really like him and think he loves America and means well...then heck, it doesn't matter what he does!"

For most of us, the ability to do the job well is the paramount concern. For the pundits, it's all joabout feelings, personality, how cool you make them feel when you hang out with them, etc. McCain is a war hero and that is AWESOME! In fact, he is a war hero who gives me the time of day and that is AWESOMER! He was BRAVE when he was held prisoner. Who cares if his policies make no sense, we LOVE him! We know him! He's AWESOME WAR HERO GUY WHO SOMETIMES WE HANG OUT WITH!

It's like America is choosing which surgeon they want to perform the incredibly complicated surgery on their child, while pundit Washington is choosing which surgeon they want to have in their golf foursome.

Is Cohen actually paid to write such tripe? Al has made better comments.

B Lair wrote: "Bush's failed economic policies were liberal economic policies."

You are obviously a troll, posting deliberately annoying BS in order to attract attention to yourself.

However, if you were not a troll posting BS in order to attract attention to yourself, but instead were a serious person, you would be making a fallacious equivalence between "bigger government" and "increased government spending" on the one hand, and liberal policies on the other hand.

The CheneyBush administration has indeed increased the size, not to mention the authoritarian power, of government; and has indeed increased government spending. But those policies are not in themselves "liberal", and the CheneyBush big-government and big-spending-paid-for-by-borrowing policies have not been directed towards liberal goals.

Rather they have been directed towards the goal of increasing the wealth and power of wealthy and powerful CheneyBush financial backers and cronies in the military-industrial-petroleum complex (as well as other wealthy and powerful corporate backers, such as the pharmaceutical and insurance industries who were the primary beneficiaries of the prescription drug legislation).

However, since you are after all a troll, posting BS in order to attract attention to yourself, these points will be lost on you and you will simply respond with more intentionally annoying BS.

I wish people wouldn't compare these media types to me. I work for a living, dammit.

liberals pretend that the Prescription Drug Act never existed. So liberals pretend that No Child Left Behind did not dramatically increase the Department of Education's budget. So liberals pretend that Bush did not increase foreign aid spending to Africa.

So, B Liar, what percentage of the total domestic budget do these programs represent?

B Liar is not here to argue in good faith, or he/she/it would acknowledge that the liberal critique of NCLB and the perscription drug programs is not the amount spent but the effectiv eness and agenda of thse programs. By the same token, Bush increased spending on ineffective, even counterproductive, abstince-only sex ed, where liberals would spend nothing at all on them.

Then again, maybe B Liar is just so dumb that he/she/it thinks that the goal of liberals is government spending alone.

Do we want more Bush-Obama Big Government spending?

The republican-talking-points industry would simply cease to exist if it weren't for the multitudes of gullible, ultra-impressionable morons out there who regurgitate the things they're told, verbatim.

They aren't rational, thinking, sentient beings - they're just myna birds, or those keychains that you can record 10 seconds of audio on.

And mhr, I keep asking conservatives this, but never get a straight answer. How does lying your ass off all the time constitute "character"?

Why should we replace Big Spender Bush with Big Spender Barack? Why should we replace one conventional, play-it-safe-and-throw-money-at-the-problem politician with another?

Why not have a man who has had the courage to stand against Big Government spending?

That man is not Barack Obama, who, like any other politician, writes checks that cannot be cashed.

That man is John McCain, who has the courage to tell people what they do not want to hear.

No wonder Obama would rather run on empty promises than on his record.

Except he did. He made propaganda films for them. I don't blame him, I would break and do whatever they wanted too, but don't claim sainthood.

So... bomb bomb bomb Iran is just a nice ol' man who really doesn't have any built up resentment towards gooks and ragheads?

My dad, who's 80 even thinks JM is too old to be preznut.

Flip flops are meant to be worn on your feet.

The most wankerific line of Cohen's was this gem, highlighted by Sir Charles at Cogitamus:

A presidential race is only incidentally about issues. It's really about likability and character.

Yes, Richard Cohen really said that. Today.

The past seven and a half years have clearly made no impression on Cohen's spotless mind.

There are things one can't say on the Washington Monthly website. I've said them in comments at the link.

Why not have a man who has had the courage to stand against Big Government spending?

B Liar, kindly report on the percentage of the federal budget comprised by 1) Medicare / Medicaid, 2) Social Security, 3) interest on the national debt and 4) defense, and then list the cuts in these line items McCain has proposed -- ever. Thanks in advance.

That man is John McCain, who has the courage to tell people what they do not want to hear.

That's true. I don't think his wife wanted to hear him call her a cunt.

That man is John McCain, who has the courage to tell people what they do not want to hear.

...this in a thread pointing to a column in which cohen acknowledges several (but hardly all) of McCain's flip-flops, even if he gives McCain a free pass for them.

What these economic liberals must realize is that, while they may be able to fool some of the people sometimes, they will not be able to fool the people who have examined the federal budgets for the past eight years.

Which I suppose is meant to include B Liar.

Who did you vote for in '04 again B Liar? Yeah, that's what I thought.

he refused to pander or flip-flop to his North Vietnamese captors

Actually he read a propaganda document that said, "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate." He read the statement because they tortured him until he broke, like anyone would.

Or was he tortured? The guy who ran the Hanoi Hilton says "we never tortured him...He lies to American voters in order to get their support for his presidential election."

Well, I hate to bear the bad news, but flip-flopping is one of the most common characteristics to be found in a politician, especially politicians that want to be president. Obama has already done some high level gymnastics in his own quest for the office, and you will see more from both candidates as November gets closer.

Actually, McCain’s war record is highly questionable. He was shot down over Hanoi while bombing a civilian lightbulb factory and parachuted into a nearby lake from which he was immediately captured. In other words, McCain became a POW while committing a war crime. If his captors had tortured him to death, it would have been very understandable, since many innocent civilians died as a result of his actions. If a foreign pilot fell into your local lake after killing many of your friends and/or relatives, you might feel compelled to torture them as well.

In the final analysis, McCain's captors showed him a lot more mercy than he showed his innocent victims.

Does McCain get points for being the "songbird" of Nam?

Hmmm, nothing on the Democrats' FISA cave-in from either Kevin or Josh Marshall. What are these guys, centrists?

Oh wait...

Yancey Ward wrote:

Well, I hate to bear the bad news, but flip-flopping is one of the most common characteristics to be found in a politician, especially politicians that want to be president.

McCain is in a whole other league. In terms of his public statements, he is the first- or second-most duplicitous politician in America today.

So, the man whose greatest accomplishment was being taken prisoner has somehow earned the right to take whatever position he's paid to take this week?

Uh, ... OK?
.

Gregory wrote: "... maybe B Liar is just so dumb ..."

B Lair, like all trolls, is fundamentally a bullshit artist whose only purpose is to impress himself with his ability to waste people's time with deliberately annoying drivel.

Anyone who says that the cynically lying, flip-flopping, pandering, career white-collar crook John McCain "has the courage to tell people what they do not want to hear" is spewing blatant BS, and knows it.

It's an election year, so there will be plenty of maliciously time-wasting trolls like B Lair posting here until November.

If they admitted that this was true, then the central message of their campaign-that Bush did not increase domestic spending enough ...

FAIL.
.

ISTM that Richard Cohen, a Democrat, is giving what he conisders to be helpful advice to Democrats. Of McCain, Cohen says, "It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line." In other words, Cohen is warning that Obama is at greater risk than McCain of losing his image entirely.

I don't know whether Cohen is right or not, but I do believe he offers this advice in a positive way, as something it would benefit the Dems to be aware of.

JMHO but I think those whispering that McCain's military service is questionable/not valid/unheroic is just.plain.stupid.

This is not an issue that can be used to win the election. If you make it an issue, we will lose.

The only policy issue on which McCain's time as a POW is relevant would be the use of torture -- and sadly he has failed that test as well. (He may have spoken against it at some point, but when it came time for a vote, he essentially supported the use of such treatment.) If McCain once had noble principles, they have vanished entirely in the 8 years since he first lost to G. W. Bush. McCain wants to be president so badly that he has sold his soul to the current administration and its supporters (all 29% of them). There is nothing left of the man worth voting for. It may be a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

"ex-liberal" wrote: ISTM

"ex-liberal," you're a perenially dishonest neocon stooge. No one cares what it "seems to you."

that Richard Cohen, a Democrat,

...who gives the Republican John McCain a conspicuous free pass in this article, and lost his mind after 9/11 to such an extent that he aligned with the neocons -- hence "ex-liberal"'s endorsement

is giving what he conisders to be helpful advice to Democrats.

Obama should be taken prisoner by the Viet Cong?

Of McCain, Cohen says, "It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line."

Which is, of course, a myth that idiot pundits like Cohen and Broder keep perpetuating, despite the clear evidence to the contrary...

In my typically dishonest re-interpretation

Fixed.

Cohen is warning that Obama is at greater risk than McCain of losing his image entirely.

But Cohen just claimed that no one knows Obama's "bottom line". Like Cohen, you aren't even bothering top make sense, "ex-liberal."

I don't know whether Cohen is right or not,

You mean your neocon masters haven't faxed you their talking points yet, "ex-liberal"?

but I do believe he offers this advice in a positive way

...with his dishonest framing and dismissal of McCain's flip-flops as proof of good faith, eh? Hey, no wonder "ex-liberal" liked it so much -- he admires a fellow purveyor of bad-faith talking points.

as something it would benefit the Dems to be aware of.

If that's true, it's clear evidence that the Democrats should avoid Cohen's advice like the plague.

Though I'm sure Cohen's column makes the Obama camp even more aware that the so-called "liberal media" -- note "ex-liberal"'s identification of Cohen as a Democrat, since you couldn't tell from his drivel over the past several years -- is going to do its best to carry water for McCain.

I do find interesting Cohen's tacit admission that McCain can't win on the issues, cast as his pining for another "likability" contest. Memo to Cohen: Most Americans who don't get to attend his BBQ parties know McCain, too, and don't like him

Though he abandoned the handle 'ex-liberal" in tacit acknowledgement of its lack of credibility, David still posts here in bad faith.

You know a party's in trouble when it hopes to win by associating the opponent with ITS OWN incumbent. B Liar: "Bush-Obama Big Government."

If that piece of flim-flammery works, then this is either the dumbest republic on the face of the earth, or pigs really can fly.

That's true. I don't think his wife wanted to hear him call her a cunt.

Coffee, coffee everywhere. But not a drop was drunk.

From the Cohen column: In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically.

This raises the question of why, again, it's somehow intrinsically worthwhile to take positions that "challenge his base"? Isn't the job of an elected representative, in most senses, to represent his base, not challenge it? Why exactly should a Democratic Senator take positions that challenge the interests and/or convictions of the Democrats who voted him into office? Why should he take positions that challenge him politically merely for the appearance of doing so? This elevates the symbolism of standing on principle over the substance of what one should actually stand on principle for.

"Challenge his base" is code. It means that Cohen wants him to attack African-Americans during the campaign.

Of course, he'll never ask McCain to challenge his base-War Mongers!

Richard Cohen consistently writes incoherent and illogical columns. His column that is the subject of Kevin's post is a prime example. McCain certainly isn't my candidate, but I'm a little taken aback that some commentators here find it necessary to "swiftboat" the guy. It's possible to disagree with, and even strongly dislike, McCain without attacking his war record. It pissed me off when Karl and W did it, and there's not a dime's worth of difference when Limbaugh Liberals do the same thing. Richard Cohen came up with his ridiculous idea for a column, not McCain.

flip-flopping is one of the most common characteristics to be found in a politician

Yancey, were you able to type this with a straight-face?

the man whose greatest accomplishment was being taken prisoner

That's not fair, he wrecked a lot of planes too.

This elevates the symbolism of standing on principle over the substance of what one should actually stand on principle for.

Nicely stated.

Coffee, coffee everywhere. But not a drop was drunk.

Jeez, you mean after what's gone on the past few days you're not hitting the hard stuff?

After a day of napalming vietnamese peasants, Mccain was shot down AND CAPTURED. AFTER DISCOVERING MCcAIN WAS THE SON OF THE cINC OF THE VIETBAMESE WAR ZONE, HE WAS TREATED ROYALLY AND BECAMNE A collaborator.

He is no war hero

Do we have anything other than McCain's word...

John McCain: War Hero or North Vietnam's Go-To Collaborator?

Whose word are we expected to take for it that McCain never told his Vietnamese captors anything? He probably spilled his guts on the very first day.

Who knows: he might've leaked some critical target location, enabling the VC thought to relocate their weapons stash or evacuate some pivotal military commander.

For all we know, it could just as well be McCain's fault that we lost Vietnam, as what the official story says.

gee, why would richard cohen thinks a man who cheats on his wife had "character"? i wonder...

Uhhh...what? McCain didn't flip-flop with his captors? Come again? HE CAVED AND DID WHAT THEY WANTED HIM TO DO! He gave in and did their bidding. He DID flip-flop then just as he is flip-flop-flipping now.

He is a constant, permanent, irredeemable flip-flopper.

Jeebus, the POW thing? McCain stay 6 years a prisoner??? Back in my distant youth I use to date a guy who was a POW in Nam but he didn't stick around as a prisoner for 6 years unlike McCain (McCain was suppose to try and escape as a directive).

My boyfriend had a problem with drinking but I could certainly see why at the time. He had been through hell in Nam, had be captured by the enemy and force to do labor. He was building a bridge but used a rattail file to stab his guard, jumped into the river under a hell of machine gun fire, swam until he could not remember swimming anymore, and woke up in US field hospital – weighing only 89 pounds at the time.

But then you have McCain, who put on his website during in his senate years, a story about guy, a fellow prisoner who, despite being beat repeatedly by the enemy, sewed an American flag on the inside of his jacket – Not McCain mind you but one of his prison mates was the truly brave guy.

So McCain used the story of this poor inmate, probably long dead, to glorify himself, pretty shameless I think, because it doesn’t take anything to be capture except a willingness not to fight, and McCain never made any waves like at least one of his fellow inmates.

McCain doesn’t even take after the air force legend of the based so named in Phoenix, know as LUKE Air force based, named for a Phoenix airman who shot himself rather than surrender to the Germany enemy.

I really think this POW thing is really a bad angle for McCain. I doesn't really make him a hero in the face of so many kids that died in that damn war.

McCain's North Vietnamese warden has swiftboated McCain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm

"But I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners."

Mr Duyet reminisces instead about how he often summoned the future US presidential candidate to his private office for informal chats.

"We used to argue about the war - about whether it was right or wrong," he says.

"He is a very frank man - very conservative, and very loyal to his country and the American ideal.

"He had a very interesting accent and sometimes he taught me words in English and corrected my accent. I have followed his career since he left prison."

So is Mr Duyet implying that that Senator McCain lied about his treatment at the Hanoi Hilton?

"He did not tell the truth," he says.

"But I can somehow sympathise with him. He lies to American voters in order to get their support for his presidential election."

Can someone point out to me how the Senator from Arizona and the presumptive nominee of the Republican party has suffered for his "maverick" stances? Would they point to his disastrous 2000 campaign against his new best buddy GWB? Please forgive me if I don't see it. John McCain has not suffered one bit politically from being casted at the maverick...I just don't see it.

If that piece of flim-flammery works, then this is either the dumbest republic on the face of the earth, or pigs really can fly.
Posted by: Big Tex

C) All of the above

"The corn required to fill an SUV tank with bioethanol just once could feed someone in Africa for a year." - New Scientist

He is a constant, permanent, irredeemable flip-flopper.
Posted by: Praedor Atrebates

That and simply bat-shit crazy.

'There is a flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president'. - Kurt Vonnegut

"But I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners."

Sadly, under the current Bush regime/GOP political correctness redefinition of "torture" this lie is technically true. The North Vietnamese only "subjected their prisoners to harsh interrogation techniques."

I agree that John McCain's "war hero" rep is not warranted, but I also agree that trying to swift-boat him on it probably will not work, unless and until someone from the Forrestal hits him up.

Before he got shot down -- safe material for Carrier Veterans for Truth.

Time in Vietnam prison -- let it go. Attacking a POW for something, anything, done in captivity just won't wash with the Merican voter.

Cohen has become a near total asshole. Saying that John McFlip-to-Same is a "known quantity" even after Cohen acknowledged McCain's shameless flipflops to attract the Republican base?!