Michael Scherer debates Michael Scherer, loses
September 19, 2008 12:19 am ET by Jamison Foser
Time's Michael Scherer has been kind enough to respond to my earlier post by ... well, by debunking his original post.
Here's Scherer's initial claim that an Obama ad distorted McCain's position on Social Security: "it is not true that McCain is running for president on a platform of turning Social Security over to Wall Street."
Now here's Scherer's update: "Read what I have written above, and decide if I am trying to hide the fact that McCain wants to pursue a plan to invest Social Security funds in the markets, which is the main allegation by Media Matters. I make this fact very clear."
Ok. Um ... if Scherer acknowledges "McCain wants to pursue a plan to invest Social Security funds in the markets," what exactly is his problem with the statement that "McCain is running for president on a platform of turning Social Security over to Wall Street"?
Scherer explains:
The ad says McCain favors "risking social security on the stock market," which is what I paraphrased as Obama's claim that McCain wants to "turn social security over to Wall Street," which the unbiased folks at Media Matters calls a strawman. I think it's a fair--though not exactly precise--characterization of the Obama claim.
Ok. Let's review:
According to Michael Scherer, "McCain wants to pursue a plan to invest Social Security funds in the markets."
But, according to Micahel Scherer, Obama's ad's statement that "McCain favors 'risking social security on the stock market'" is a distortion of McCain's position.
Huh?
Scherer continues:
The post mentions three ads that all share the same problem, which is clearly identified in the first paragraph. To wit, instead of talking about the opponents' plans, the ads talk about the opponents' past votes. This process obstructs the debate that should be happening about the candidate's plans. The Obama social security ad says McCain wants to do what Bush did. This is not what McCain now says he wants to do. That's the point.
The problem is, that point is wrong. Scherer supports it with nothing more than a vague statement from McCain's web page (a statement that actually undermines Scherer's point, as it endorses "personal accounts") and a slightly less vague statement from Mark Salter. He ignores John McCain's repeated comments this year in support of private accounts -- comments that a simple Google search for "McCain Social Security privatization" will unearth in seconds. Comments that I linked in my earlier post. And Scherer ignores his own statement -- just a few sentances earlier -- that "McCain wants to pursue a plan to invest Social Security funds in the markets."
Scherer says there should be a debate about the candidates' plans. I agree. But his post obscures McCain's plans; it doesn't clarify them. For instance, Scherer keeps suggesting that McCain's current statements contradict (and moot) his previous votes -- but he hasn't explained how they do so.
When he does get around to explaining -- perhaps in his next update? -- maybe Scherer can also explain why he dismisses the votes cited in the ad, one of which occured in 2006, as having taken place "a decade ago."
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
J.F. It would do the world a favour to point out;
1. Part of what Michael Scherer is hiding behind, is that McCain wants personal accounts and that he does not want to partially privatize social security (never mind that he admits tha McCain does want to do so in the update)
The fact that G.W.B. and the republicans moved from "partially privatize" social security to "private accounts." Cato Institute's Michael D. Tanner said that "the term 'privatization' always polls about 20 points lower than a description of it." "Semantics are very important," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)said last week when a reporter asked about "private" accounts. "They're personal accounts, not private accounts. No one is advocating privatizing Social Security."
This change was not accidental it was made simply because "polls and focus groups for both sides have shown that voters -- especially older ones, who vote in disproportionately heavy numbers -- distrust any change that has the word "private" attached to it." Is it a surprise that Michael Scherer falls for this semantic sleight of hand so hard?
2. Scherer writes, "To wit, instead of talking about the opponents' plans, the ads talk about the opponents' past votes. This process obstructs the debate that should be happening about the candidate's plans. "
This is pure nonsense. A politicians past votes tells us infinitely more about what a politician wants to enact into law and the politicians guiding philosophy than what a politician says on the campaign trail. This is a slight variation of the, "It is not time to point fingers but time to come up with solutions" that has been employed again and again from Katrina, Iraq and now the financial mess we find the economy in.
I would also listen to this if, as you point out, Michael set out to illuminate the two politicians position on the issues instead of the common “pox on both their houses” routine that journalists currently must have enforced in their contracts.
"McCain wants personal accounts and that he does not want to partially privatize social security"
How is he hiding behind that? It's the exact same thing.
I intended to put across the fact that part of Scherers argument is that since McCain is not for "the privatization of social security but for "personal accounts" that makes Obama accusing McCain of wanting to privatize social security a lie. Which is of course nonsense. I back this up with a link to a WP article showing how the wording was changed from the former to the latter purely due to polling results. The two mean the same thing.
Forgive the poor editing, I posted the above and the previous from my handheld on the go.
You're just being silly. Of course Obama is distorting McCain's plan. Obama says McCain wants to risk Social Security in the stock market. McCain wants no such thing. He plans to put Social Security in stocks and make everyone rich. Why would anyone think of the stock market as risky? That is just silly.
How do I turn off the sarcasm tag?
But McCain doesn't want to privatize Social Security. He wants to make to make private accounts Social Security.
(when you find that tag let me know...)
Its that little chromium switch.
Quid malmborg in plano.
Maybe Mr. Scherer will be big enough to respond again, but I'm betting no.
The press' effort to prop up the McCain campaign is truly amazing. They are really afraid that a black man could become president. Not so much because they are racists, but because if Bill Clinton was "not one of us" then Barack Obama must really, REALLY not be one of us. I mean, just look at him and how he spells his name.
This Scherer chap should be a member of the McCain campaign...
He clearly has John's reasoning skills, and his flip-flopping appears to be outstanding.
John McCain's supporters DO have a lot of apologizing to do,now and later.
And Scherer has a lot of explaining to do. since he has dug a very large hole for himself.
Dig it!
I think both of these responses to Scherer's piece, while relevant and correct, fail to emphasize what is really egregious about his style of journalism. To my mind, what's really unacceptable is not the fact that he's set up a straw man to use against Obama, or that he's describing contradictions between the McCain platform and his earlier voting record that aren't really there. What's unacceptable is that, even if we assume that there is such a contradiction, Scherer advocates giving more credence to the McCain campaign's platform statements than the Senator's actual voting record. When it comes to drawing conclusions about what a presidential candidate might do once given that power, it is often necessary to begin from the standpoint of their campaign platform, but if that is not borne out by their voting record - if their votes consistently contradict the claim of a popular position - then odds are they are lying in the effort to secure the presidency. The practice, clearly advocated by Scherer,of uncritically restating the claims made by politicians is a crucial reason why organizations like Media Matters are so distressingly necessary these days.
- Edward Carney