I said SPECIFICALLY. McCain implied Kerry has his facts wrong ABOUT WHAT?

Quote word for word what McCain said that you claim was a repeat of the smears. Not generalities. Specifics.

That he lied about what happened in combat. He implied Kerry had his facts wrong, but you couldn’t blame him because combat is chaotic. He was repeating the smear in a way to stay above the fray.

By the way, weren’t you the one who got pissy when I wondered where you had gone from a previous debate? Now you gave me less than 24 hours before making the same complaint.

Why the change of heart?

Which one? Specifically.

He then blamed John Kerry and even repeated the smears. Hardly a rebuke of the Swiftboaters.

Well, maybe if you said what you meant clearly the first time. When I say I’d like it if a Senator said “goddamn liars” and you respond that people didn’t like it when Cheney swore a Leahy that you are comparing the two. And fair for people to point out that they aren’t really comparable so any reaction to one isn’t a good example of the reaction that would come from the other.

Now, I do agree with you that Oliver overstated it by saying McCain sat on his hands when clearly it has been shown that he did make comments against the Swift Boaters. (And find Oliver’s subsequent “tepid at best” a rather Clintonian qualification.) But McCain’s comments certainly could have been stronger and were far too carefully chosen for someone who bills himself as a straight-talker.

How hard is it to say, “Yeah, I didn’t know about that quote, I guess “John McCain sat on his hands, nodded” isn’t quite an accurate picture of things.”

And I don’t even like John McCain..!

Ok, want a better example? During the 2000 campaign mics picked up Bush saying privately (at least Bush thought so) to Cheney “There’s Adam Clymer – major league asshole – from the NY Times.” Nobody heard him save for reporters whose radio or network TV sound equipment was plugged into the microphone. But when it got out that’s what he said, the finger waggers were ready.

Getting back to the MAIN POINT:

A. Oliver accused John McCain “sat on his hands, nodded, and smiled” at the Swift Boat ads. That’s NOT TRUE.

B. John McCain said the ad was “dishonest and dishonorable.” That’s the equivalent of the truck driver version which goes, “Those guys are goddamn liars!”

Yes he is. But only because it helps his argument de jour.

Jay, I was only speaking for myself. “Actually, that is exactly what I’d like to see.” And it is what I’d like to see. I wasn’t speaking of what the more general “people are like”. Minor point, but you did had to switch the target there to make a criticism.

As for what people are like, those who are shocked (shocked!) to find gambling going on, uh, I mean, to hear politicians using such language aren’t really. They use it in place of their real objection, which they don’t want to voice. “I don’t like so-and-so because he’s a different religion, but I know that won’t go over well so I’ll say I don’t like him because he once swore.”

For the record, I’m with Jay on the larger topic, and I feel like there’s a lot of semantical acrobatics going on here to paint McCain in a worse light on his reaction to the Swift Boat Liars.

But the above statement is a weak support. There is a profound difference between calling out the Swifties as “goddamn liars” and telling a Senator, in the halls of the Senate, to “go fuck himself.” There is also a profound difference between either of the above and using curses to describe war.

The first and third should be acceptable. The second was wildly inappropriate, and said a lot more about Cheney than it did about Leahy.

Let’s see, Jay. Leahy made critical comments to Cheney about profiteering by Halliburton and Bush’s judicial nominees and Cheney snidely replied “Go fuck yourself.” A group publicizes blatant lies in a smear campaign and a Senator stands up and says “These guys are goddamn liars.”

Are you really equating the two? Can you really not see the difference between an insult made in place of debate, and a person standing up and calling a liar a liar?

We say we’d like it, but when it happens people are like, “Oh my goodness!” and behave like Quakers.

Actually, that is exactly what I’d like to see. It would be a vast improvement over the delicate, parsed, market-tested-to-be-unoffensive let’s-make-sure-we-don’t-say-anything-that-someone-might-object-to pablum they usually spew.

Hell, if Romney (for example) made such a clear, unequivocal honest comment just once, I’d seriously consider changing my whole opinion of him.

Using the language and using it in public are two different things.

And that is blaming Kerry.

Not for the Swift Boat ads.

And then went on to repeat the attacks. That is worse than saying there was just a difference of opinions. He helped spread the smears while pretending to be above them.

Repeat what attacks? He mentioned the “Christmas in Cambodia” story which KERRY HIMSELF said wasn’t accurate. How can something be a ’smear’ when the supposed person being smeared admits the story wasn’t true? McCain was essentially defending Kerry by saying it was no big deal.

t’s more accurate than anything you’ve said.

I’ve only posted what McCain said. You’re the one choosing to distort context.

McCain did nothing to stop the attacks

McCain wasn’t in a position to “stop the attacks.” The question is whether or not McCain “sat on his hands, nodded, and smiled” at the Swift Boat ads which he clearly did not do. Again, McCain’s words:

“I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.”

Asked if the White House was behind the ad, McCain said:

“I hope not, but I don’t know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.”

Yeah. That’s really “sitting on his hands, nodding and smiling.”

Jay: “He publicly said that the ad was “dishonest and dishonorable.” I am guessing that having a United States Senator going on television and saying, ‘Those guys are goddamn liars!’ is not something people want to see.”

It wouldn’t be the first time he used that language.

Jay: “He said ‘Kerry may have opened himself to criticism.’”

And that is blaming Kerry.

Jay (quoting the article: “He said it’s pointless to argue over whether Kerry was right or wrong…” And then went on to repeat the attacks. That is worse than saying there was just a difference of opinions. He helped spread the smears while pretending to be above them.

Jay: “The bottom line (as this is once again descending into pedantic nonsense)…”

I don’t think it’s a trivial difference between what you said and the reality of what happened.

Jay: “…is not accurate.”

It’s more accurate than anything you’ve said.

McCain did nothing to stop the attacks