The more people get to know McCain the more people will realize that he is what he is.  If you want to call him a "maverick",  call him a maverick.  If you want to call him a flip-flopping opportunistic seasoned politician, then call him that as well.

The sting some feel, or the endearment others feel, over the "maverick"label  has lost it's luster......who cares. 

The brain dead media still cares less enough about the truth to still define him as a maverick, not just merely call him "The Maverick." 

But since we sensitive liberals just aren't apathetic enough toward the media, I guess we're the ones with the problem, right?

If it's a big deal to make sure McCain is stripped of that insidious label, then by all means correct the entire brain dead media for each and every usage.

As I pointed out, they're not merely labeling him a maverick, they are literally defining him as one.

Apparently Jack Cafferty disagrees. He just said all this maverick stuff is just a bunch of hooey.

How dare you interrupt Tommy's WITH post with facts and information?

He knows why Media Matters posts things like this. It's because portraying McCain as a maverick furthers the conservative agenda because it's inaccurate information about John McCain's actual behavior.

The motivation of the MSM, or the impact on that statement by people who know better are not the issues. It's that it makes McCain appear different than he really is - different in a better way than he deserves to look based upon his behavior.

Gee, really Sue?  You are right there with your finger on the pulse of  misinformation.  I had no idea why MMFA put this here, and I thought it was only to illicit a response from you, well, that must be the second reason.

Virtually spotless dishes, Tommy, when will you learn!  MMFA put this here because journalists shouldn't act like they're selling us some stain remover.  Simple really.  I almost surpized that you still don't get.  

...you still don't get it (aka WITHy WITH WITH!)

....and you must be the third reason.  Go, GO, in peace.......

Thanks for the admission that despite apparently posting here for years, and having the reasons why Media Matters post things here explained to you repeatedly, you still don't get it.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a wonderful admission to make, or so funny, but you are your own man, so do what makes you happy.

You demonstrated that you didn't understand or wouldn't understand why this was posted here. If you're now trying to say that you do understand why this is being posted here, then you're admitting that your objections are only a weak attempt to distract us and nothing more.

"......who cares[?]"

I do.  Members of the media should not market candidates and politicians. McCain's so-called "reputation of a maverick" is the product of Harwood's (and others') repetitive and off-base branding.

especially considering that he's voted with Bush 90-95% of the time.  A Maverick on what?  I do agree with Tommy on the "who cares" part.  However, the problem is the 30% that still support Bush eat this up as if anything would change with McBush in office.

The 30% that still support Bush probably detest the "maverick" label as much as many do here.  Those dieharders for Bush most likely never cared for McCain when he may have earned that label, back when he opposed Bush's tax cuts for example.  So I would doubt they care for that label either.

What about when the media "brands" or "markets" Obama as a rock star?  Are you as equally vociferous in your objections to that?

That depends on how vociferous you say I am.

Dodger......

If the media tries to literally define Obama as a rock star when he possesses no musical talent and does not put on rock concerts, that means the media has its collective head up its rear end.

When the media tries to literally define McCain as a maverick when his words and actions reflect the opposite, that means the media has its collective head up its rear end.

I'm not certain that "rock star" and "maverick" are really comparable terms of endearment as the first points more to a general level of popularity/celebrity while the other is a reference to political standing.  But I do think that the credible news media, if there were such an animal, should not really be using either of those terms.

But why does it get your knickers in such a twist whenever MM complains about the maverick thing?

I would say MMFA gets its knickers in a twist every time some media member utters such a ridiculously irrelevant label.  I just comment on it.

Yes, MM jumps to point out the "maverick" label very often, no argument.  And you always comment something along the lines of "Get over it, this doesn't matter." 

So I guess what I'm trying to say to you here is that MM is going to keep talking about this so maybe you should just get over it, it doesn't matter.  :)

So in other words you only want to hear from those like you who are burnin', hoppin' mad over this "maverick" label?  Not from those who disagree? 

I would say you need to get over it, not me.

But you misunderstand, I'm not all that engaged in the maverick thang.  Most of the time I skip over these entries on MMfA but today I'm just really bored.

I chalk it up to sheer laziness on the part of our useless media, once they find a label they stick with it regardless of whether the label has remained appropriate or not.  (It never really was appropriate, until positioning himself as a Presidential candidate McCain was always a centrist Republican, it was the shift of the party around him to the far right that made him seem like a rogue.  I've wondered how it was that Delay never managed to purge him with the rest of those who didn't toe the new line.)

What I find humorous here is that this is a cycle with no end:  MMfA is never going to stop complaining about the use of the Mav label and you will never stop complaining about MMfA's compaining about it.

I agree with you about the laziness of the media, or their insistence on labeling everyone and everything to highlight in their graphics, or just for convenience.....you are absolutely right.  

But this maverick silliness has outlived any bite anymore, at least for me.  Of course I don't think McCain is a maverick, but I also think it's essentially harmless. It has been around for so long that its nearly meaningless.  And now that McCain is the nominee people will see him for what he is, regardless of some decades old label once affixed to him and still used occasionally. 

And you always comment something along the lines of "Get over it, this doesn't matter."

 

I think his 8 posts about the Media's Maverick in this thread alone underscore just how little he cares.

Pointing out your overreactions here is part of the fun, Governor.  And knowing you count my posts is just gravy.

Yeah, your constant protestations that you don't understand why Media Matters is covering something, your repeated WITH posts when the reasons are clear, and your consistent personal attacks on those people who do the best job of putting your arguments where they deserve, in the dustbin, show your overreaction, because you're so frightened of the power of Media Matters. Your pathology is showing.

They're not labeling him with it, they're defining him with it.

Then your beef is with MMFA, because they say "maverick" is a moniker, which is a nickname, or a label. 

Perhaps you should contact them for a headline rewrite > "McCain's reversals don't stop Harwood from continuing to use "maverick" [ as a definition]"

Excellent point.

I'm going to make sure they know. 

I disagree that it is irrelevant.  It's the only thing McCain has going for him.

And viewing it from the perspective of your typical "last week in October" voter, "Maverick" has a good connotation.  James Garner made it cool.  We can't let McCain drag the term through the hog trough.

I would say MMFA gets its knickers in a twist every time some media member utters such a ridiculously irrelevant label.

Tommy, the maverick label is was made John McCain a household name back in 2000. His popularity with the public came from reporters constant use of the word maverick when reporting on McCain. They painted a picture of a principled man who stood up to his party when he thought they were wrong. He was his own man not owned by any party affiliation. NONE of that was ever true. McCain voted with the Republican party 90% of the time. During this campaign he’s totally capitulated to the conservative wing of the Republican party. There isn't one issues that he hasn't flipped on and his current tacky campaign tactics are right out of Rove/Republican play book.

Just a simple request for accurate reporting.  

Pearl,

I am not denying it's misuse.  I am merely commenting on it's impact, anymore. 

There's always an impact when the media lies to us.

I am merely commenting on it's impact, anymore. 

It's impact is it's continued use.

I've notice since McCain's "celebrity" ad, Republican blowhards are saying the word "celebrity" and "Obama" together. It's designed is to get folks to think "Hollywood useless celebrity" when thinking of Obama just like they want folks to think "principled, honorable man" by continuing to call McCain a maverick.

Pearl,

There will always be people that vote on labels or intuition, for or against any candidate.  I guess it's better than not voting at all, but it will happen as often for your candidate as against.  Some will vote for Obama because he is young, or because he is a "rock star", or because it's cool to vote for him, as opposed to stale and stodgy to vote for the "old guy".   And there are probably McCain supporters who say the exact same thing about Obama and the media labels that are rightly or wrongly affixed to him.  

The maverick thing is not some new 2008 label that may have some resonance, it's as old and worn out as.........well, you know :) 

it's as old and worn out as.........well, you know :) 

Tommy, I know absolutely nothing about ***. :p

It's just wrong for journalists to market the people they're suppose to be reporting on.  It's very clear (based in part on your 250+ posts about the Media's Maverick) that you don't really care either way, but that's really the only issue here.  ::winkieface::

 

And you've made your point over and over and over Governor, trying to incite another argument with me over it.  I am not biting because you have your opinion and I have mine. Go in peace........

I need to "go" because you don't care for this thread?

No.

Governor, You're talking and answering yourself now.  Break time.......

It was just a test. You passed.

Nicknames tend to stick though. It's just an image or title that becomes associated with that individual or organization.

"Yes, he is a maverick."

"John McCain, who has been such a maverick"

"John McCain, so often a maverick Republican."

"He's a maverick. He's a war hero."

This is not "nicknaming," this is literally defining him as a maverick.

And what about that last one? 

Would "war hero" also be reduced to a silly nickname using the same logic?

Am I the one who said "moniker" aka nickname or label?  No.

Um...that was clearly in reply to Dawuss.

Oops, never mind.......

McCain is as much a "Maverick" as Mel Gibson--in that it's a role he played for a brief time years ago and now no longer applies.

Gibson's a hack.

James Garner is the only real Maverick.

*sigh*...

Hey, what about Bart?

I would argue aginst only, but definitly one of the few true Marvericks. In the best sense of the word.

Well, then.  You would be wrong.

---

1 And Maverick spake all these words, saying,

2 I am Garner thy Maverick, which have brought thee out of the land of cowboys, out of the house of gambling.

3 Thou shalt have no other Mavericks before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is on CBS, or that is on NBC, or that is worn by Maverick without paying royalty fees.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I Garner am Maverick, visiting the iniquity of the reruns upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that watched me;

6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my schwag.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of Garner thy Maverick in vain; for Garner will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, 8:00 p.m. EST, 7:00 Central, to keep it open.

9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day at 8:00 p.m. EST is the premier of Maverick: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy living room:

Thou didst hear all this thru thy television tubes in olden days, before faux McMaverick befouled the airwaves with his cheap imitation?

Irredentifrence recognificant! Thy maverick be longwinded. And you totally swept into the recycling bin of history his aspecktical as.....THE MAN BEHIND THE WHEEL!!

He'd of wupped McQueen at Le Mans.

He did a photo shoot a year or so back in a Formula Ford. Freaked out his handlers by putting some heat into the drive and then disappeared into the back to have a smoke with some of the mechanics.