McCain Distances Himself From Top Adviser's Claim That Terror Attack Would Help McCain

[ProSense]

McCain Distances Himself From Top Adviser's Claim That Terror Attack Would Help McCain

By Greg Sargent - June 23, 2008, 3:28PM
John McCain is rapidly distancing himself from a claim by senior adviser Charlie Black that a terror attack on the United States would help McCain in political terms.

Here's McCain at a presser today, responding to a question about his top adviser, who rather bluntly told Fortune magazine that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto "helped" McCain and added that a terror attack on U.S. soil "would be a big advantage" to McCain

(Video: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/">McCain Disavows Adviser's Claim that Attack Would Help Him)

"I strenuously disagree," McCain said.

The funny thing about this is that while this is obviously a hideously tasteless gaffe for McCain's top adviser to make, the notion that a terror attack would help Republicans is something that's seen as perfectly routine when pundits argue it.

This odious argument somehow isn't seen as crude or distasteful when "disinterested" observers say it, which is bizarre, even putting aside the fact that it's probably outright wrong, given the multiple polls finding

[ingac70]

1. If McCain was sincere...

he'd dump Charlie Black.

[ProSense]

2. McCain isn't sincere about anything.

He agreed with Bush's comment accusing his critics of appeasement.

[ProSense]

3. Top McCain Adviser Charlie Black Regrets Saying Terror Attack Would Help Campaign

Top McCain Adviser Charlie Black Regrets Saying Terror Attack Would Help Campaign

[democrattotheend]

4. There's a big difference

I've said the same thing before, that if there is another terrorist attack we are screwed. But when a campaign says it, it makes it sound like they are wishing for it.

[blondeatlast]

5. "Distances," but doesn't condemn--and the M$m gives McCain a virtual pass. nt