MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Eugene Jarecki's Devestating First-Hand Account Of McCain & Salter

Jarecki tells the story of how he ended up in the middle of McCain’s shift from anti-Bush to Bush-friendly… it’s not pretty.
Here is the clip from the film –

And here is a key passage, though it is all worth reading. Mark Salter is McCain’s right hand, then as now:
“Salter… declared to me that I was “making it look like John McCain was critical of the Vice-President,” and that “Vice-President Cheney has nothing to do with Halliburton,” I realized that what he was objecting to was not that McCain might appeared too close to Cheney but rather not close enough. Mr. Salter demanded that I send him a transcript of the Senator’s interview, not just the parts that appear in the film. Since none of the film’s more than twenty other interviewees had been provided such a thing, and since I valued the film’s independence from political pressure, I told Mr. Salter I would seek advice from other journalists and get back to him.
Salter next resorted to threats, saying that, unless I complied, he would smear my name in the media and exert pressure on the film’s principal funder never to work with me again. I said I thought the BBC would be unlikely to welcome such pressure from an irate chief of staff to a senator. Salter then changed gears, appealing to my sense of fairness. “When Senator McCain sat down to talk to you,” he explained, “he thought he was talking to a television crew from the BBC.”
Read the whole story here.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “Eugene Jarecki's Devestating First-Hand Account Of McCain & Salter”

  1. Sam says:

    Checking The Hot Blog this morning, I had to scroll down to the ninth post to find one that had anything to do with MOVIES, and then only tangentially. Damn, David. Seriously, what the hell.
    See you after the election. Maybe. The Hot Blog’s gone cold.

  2. David Poland says:

    Sorry to stress your scrolling finger, Sam… pretty sure that Frost/Nixon and Milk are not tangential, albeit posts almost 35 hours old.
    If you don’t come back, we’ll miss ya. But some things are actually more important than Saw V and Zack and Miri Make a Porno.

  3. jeffmcm says:

    That was snide.

  4. LYT says:

    Did you follow the link, Sam?
    This post actually has A LOT to do with movies.

  5. IOIOIOI says:

    No; it’s fucking honest. This is for keeps. If you are going to come with some nonsense. Be prepared for people to question it.

  6. David Poland says:

    It was a little snide, J-Mc… but it is why I have shanghaied my own blog in recent weeks.
    Movies of value have been covered. Movie news of significance has been covered. But once I chose to allow myself the indulgence of politics in here, the priority has been the priority, as I see it.
    And soon, it will change. And happily so.
    But as I have always said to people who are unhappy about my choices of content focus… scroll, leave, do what you must. If I am worrying about pleasing everyone, then I won’t be very interesting, running nothing but trailers and so-what opinions about so-what stories.
    The movie business is in a rough place. The more intersting movies have kept their powder dry, waiting for the election to be over (just as they avoid big movies that will suck up all the air). And so it goes…

  7. jeffmcm says:

    DP, that was just about the most pleasing interaction I’ve had with you in months, thanks.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon