The Literary Mark Salter

In mid-2008 I profiled Mark Salter, the former McCain aide whom Halperin identifies as the author of O. Salter’s authorship would certainly be consistent with O‘s thinly-veiled and rather mocking portrait of Arianna Huffington and her Huffington Post, as evidenced by my favorite passage from the piece:

This vision of the future came to Salter on a Saturday night in late May 2006, as he sat down at his home computer to check the latest news about McCain. A search led Salter to a fresh blog item on the liberal Huffington Post. Titled “Why I Spoke Up,” it was written by a young woman named Jean Rohe. A day earlier, Rohe had spoken just before McCain at the commencement ceremony of Manhattan’s New School. Rohe unexpectedly castigated McCain, roundly condemning his support for the Iraq war. Now she was amplifying the incident across the Internet via The Huffington Post.

Salter is neither a humorless man nor an intolerant one. McKinnon recalls a campaign swing through Kentucky, during which a jug of moonshine appeared on the Straight Talk Express after the candidate had called it a night. “Salter gets it and takes like five huge gulps of the thing,” he recalls. “We call Mark the next morning, and he says he’s paralyzed from the waist down and blind.” He also counts among his close friends several members of the D.C. media establishment–a rare quality in a senior Republican operative. Reporters return the compliment. “I never once found him to lie to me or deceive me,” says one person who has covered McCain extensively for a major news outlet. “And I don’t give that compliment too lightly. I think he works pretty hard at that reputation.”

But reading Rohe’s words, and especially what he calls the “toxic” anti-McCain vitriol of the blog’s often-anonymous commenters, Salter felt his blood boil. He hammered out a ferocious response:

Once upon time, even among the young, the words courage and hero were used more sparingly, more precisely. It took no courage to do what you did, Ms. Rohe. It was an act of vanity and nothing more. … [McCain] has, over and over again, risked personal ambitions for what he believes, rightly or wrongly, are in the best interests of the country. What, pray tell, have you risked? The only person you have succeeded in making look like an idiot is yourself. … Should you grow up and ever get down to the hard business of making a living and finding a purpose for your lives beyond self-indulgence some of you might then know a happiness far more sublime than the fleeting pleasure of living in an echo chamber. And if you are that fortunate, you might look back on the day of your graduation and your discourtesy to a good and honest man with a little shame and the certain knowledge that it is very unlikely any of you will ever posses one small fraction of the character of John McCain.

Salter posted this screed under Rohe’s item at 10:28 p.m. By the next day, The Huffington Post was featuring it under the giddy headline TOP MCCAIN AIDE INSULTS ENTIRE COLLEGE GRADUATING CLASS. Today, Salter admits he may have gotten carried away, perhaps with the aid of a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.

Heh.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • paulejb

    Mark Salter may have gotten carried away, but he was right on target when speaking of those who treated John McCain’s sacrifices in service to this country with contempt. These silly elitist brats probably consider having to turn off their cell phones on airplanes a major sacrifice. You won’t find any of these people on the front lines.

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    As much as I disagree with the substance of Salter’s argument there (speaking up in front of a powerful figure like McCain in a public setting indeed takes courage) I have to admit that for what must have been a highly emotional topic for a writer in his cups, that was pretty good.

  • Ivy_B

    especially what he calls the “toxic” anti-McCain vitriol of the blog’s often-anonymous commenters,
    .
    Hmm. Would you want your writing to be judged by the same from Swampland? I think it’s fine to take Rohe to task, but the “especially?”
    .
    Of course McCain got lots of passes from the press for years — you should have read Swampland and the criticism of Ana Marie at the infamous tire-swing picnic – so it’s also a little disingenous of Salter to go into a rant about an article he finds as he “sat down at his home computer to check the latest news about McCain.”
    .
    That said, I would suggest that such a strong McCain partisan might not be the best person to write an unbiased book about Obama – supposedly someone with “inside” knowledge of the Obama campaign. He isn’t exactly what I would consider someone to meet that criterion.

  • shepherdwong

    Jebus, that screed sounds like the fact-free, adolescent-level, winger rants I read every day:
    .
    Republican sycophancy: check.
    .
    Attack (unknown) liberal’s courage: check.
    .
    Attack (unknown) liberal’s motives: check.
    .
    Attack (unknown) liberal’s work ethic: check.
    .
    Attack (unknown) liberal’s honesty: check.
    .
    Attempt to shame (unknown) liberal based solely upon previously stated, completely unsupported personal invective: check.
    .
    /rant
    .
    Guess that’s one read I won’t have to waste my time on.

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong,

    You are an angry man, Wong. You are really going to have to get over the 2010 election. This is democracy. You take your lumps and attempt to do better the next time. You don’t go off on rants about everybody and everything.

    Salter was honestly outraged that a snotty little elitist brat was disparaging a man who had sacrificed so much for his country. He rightly pointed out that the young lady in question was talking through her hat, She deserved to be called out.

  • libssd

    Mercifully, Rolling Stone’s October 2006 piece, “Make-Believe Maverick,” by Tom Dickinson, is again available online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/make-believe-maverick-20081016

  • Ivy_B

    Thanks. This story sent me back to find the complete profile done on McCain by the Arizona Republic, which I had lost track of with prior browser problems. It is very detailed and complete, written by his state paper reporters who were a little less captivated by the old Straight Talk Express meme than the nationals.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter1.html

  • pintortwo

    Shep, you really didn’t read it? That’s awesome, you nailed it.
    .
    … I’ve never heard of anyone take 5 gulps of “moonshine”.. not even close. What is this guy up to.
    This is a congressional aide fergoodnssake.

  • apr2563

    Since journalists on this site continue to have multiple posts on the same inane topics, I have decided commntators should follow their lead. Here is my response to the earlier post today by MS.

    Michael, here are a couple of reviews you can peruse or wait for the Cliffs Notes. Since you seem to make judgements about a book you haven’t finished, I thought these would help.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/entertainment/la-et-rutten-20110125
    .
    When the author’s identity is revealed, as it surely will be, this person will be amply dismissed for composing the manuscript that became this leaden book.
    .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/books/21book.html
    .
    Well, now we know why the author of this much gossiped about, heavily marketed new book wanted to remain anonymous: “O: A Presidential Novel” is a thoroughly lackadaisical performance — trite, implausible and decidedly unfunny.
    *********
    Crowley, what I find most disturbing is another example of incestuous relations between journalists and their subjects. McCain certainly had plenty of those relationships.

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    I’m failing to see how this is interesting to anyone outside the DC political and media establishments.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Terrible posts, mostly partisan codependence, the Swamp is fading as fast as the body politic. Defibrillation seems essential.

  • apr2563

    Mr. Crowley: Here is what is urgent and interesting.
    Yes freeper et al, an interesting column from a conservative outlet.
    .
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/now-yemen-ctd.html
    .
    Yemenis first took to the streets over the past weekend, In response, the president made a number of concessions, including releasing a rights activist from prison, announcing plans to raise the salaries of government employees and military personnel by almost $50, and issuing a public denial that he is grooming his son to take over power.
    .
    http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/01/26/lebanons-new-pm-iii/
    .
    The point here is not to cheer for a March 8-led government. Properly speaking, none of this is America’s concern, and it has little to do with American security. However, we should observe that a lawful, basically peaceful change in government in Lebanon that benefits a political coalition Westerners dislike is not the end of the world, nor is it even necessarily that bad for Lebanon. No one has “lost” Lebanon, because Americans never possessed Lebanon. It is not ours to lose.

  • apr2563

    More:
    A compelling letter from Cairo.
    .
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/a-letter-from-cairo.html
    .

    I’m a US national studying Arabic at the American University in Cairo, and I live in Abdeen, Downtown Cairo, about three minutes’ walk from Tahrir Square and a block from the Interior Ministry. The area has been on a pretty firm lockdown since yesterday morning, with thousands of riot police deployed to blockade every street for a kilometer around the Ministry to foot traffic as well as vehicles.

    One can’t look at the police here as faceless, jackbooted thugs – they’re some of the city’s poorer inhabitants, perpetually hungry-looking guys in their twenties that look like they’re in their forties. And for the last two days, they’ve looked scared. Every local I’ve talked to over the last thirty hours, regardless of their politics, has said the same thing: this is the craziest it’s ever been.

    .
    Mr. Crowley, you gave us a cursory mention of Egypt in a post, then it was back to this really important news about O or is that zero?

  • shepherdwong

    You are an angry man, Wong.”
    .
    No, you’re mistaken, you don’t know me.
    .
    I simply despise professional “conservatives” because they work to corrupt every social good – truth, decency, justice, enlightenment, meritocracy, democracy – for money. You should consider it yourself. Every true patriot should.

  • apr2563

    Sorry, didn’t mean to go so far off topic. But, when I see 2 stupid, irrelevant posts on the same topic, I go a little ballistic. I am so tired of the traditional media’s self-absorbtion and game playing. There are great journalists like Dana Priest and others who are relevant and serious, I wish it was true for all. I don’t read TMZ for a reason.

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong@4.3,

    I know all I need to know about you from the tone of your comments. You seem bitter and disappointed. You seem to want to paint all people who disagree with you with the same brush. You ascribe motivations to people who you can not possibly know.

    If I were to say that all liberals who took grants from the government for some social cause were solely in it for the money, would I be right? Would I be justified to question their patriotism?

    Perhaps you should take heed of the admonition from the Bible. “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye.” Matthew 7:3

  • paulejb

    grape_crush@8,

    A bit incestuous sure, but entertaining nonetheless.

  • shepherdwong

    If I were to say that all liberals who took grants from the government for some social cause were solely in it for the money, would I be right? Would I be justified to question their patriotism?
    .
    No, being a victim of those professional “conservatives” working to corrupt the truth, you would be participating in their slanderous lie about liberals because all liberals don’t take grants from the government for some social cause…solely for the money (see how that works: truth vs. lie?). But your problem is more about understanding how debased, extreme and traitorous the “conservative” movement and the Republican Party have become, since that’s where your allegiance seems to lie, rather than with your country.

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong@4.5,

    And are we to just take your word for it that liberals are not in it solely for the money? Than how do you explain all the waste, fraud and abuse in these government handouts?

    No, Wong, you can’t defend your claim that your side is always on the side of the angels and that anyone that disagrees with you is the devil.

    Your beliefs are so fervent that they reek of religious fundamentalism. You claim to be righteous and that justifies you in vilifying anyone that disagrees with you.

    You really need to get over yourself, Wong.

  • shepherdwong

    Than how do you explain all the waste, fraud and abuse in these government handouts?
    .
    Hahahahahahaha! What, you think that it’s liberals who are ripping off the government?! My god, you are the perfect useful idiot.
    .
    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/103401-white-house-wants-broad-new-authority-on-medicare-fraud-

  • http://ks2problema.wordpress.com KS2 Problema

    Hilarious.

    I had supported McCain in 2000 but by 2006 was hugely distressed by his positions and rhetoric.

    I read Salter’s screed and though, Oh, brother, what a load of self-righteous chest-beating.

    It’s so much more delicious in this context.

blog comments powered by Disqus