John McCain Open Thread.--
If you want to comment on John McCain, his candidacy, or any Volokh Conspiracy post relating to him, you may do so below.
Please be substantive and civil.
John McCain Open Thread.--
If you want to comment on John McCain, his candidacy, or any Volokh Conspiracy post relating to him, you may do so below. Please be substantive and civil. |
Obama developed his timetable on his own: all combat troops out by March 31, 2008 - i.e., immediate (and even then, behind schedule). See SB433 110th Congress authored by Sen. Obama and dated January 31, 2007.
Is this the same timetable the Maliki government wants? If not, Obama's solution isn't necessarily any more what the Maliki government wants than what Bush or McCain will reach after responsible discussions with the Iraqi government.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that the candidate who is trying to take the moral high ground by claiming to be the one that will work with all parties and compromise is the one that appears to have picked a withdrawal date without consulting with the Iraqi's in determining firm policy around this keystone issue of his campaign? One can only imagine what he will do when the voters and the world aren't looking.
I'm also willing to let him off the hook on his "as well-funded as" comment, or at least I'm ready to take his words more generally than you have: The army is well-funded. The peace corps isn't. I think that Obama is saying that, under his presidency, the PC would become well-funded. Does that mean that the taxpayer cost per would become the same for the PC as is the Army, ballooning the costs of these programs as you've described? Only if you take his words at their most literal, and I'm not sure that was his intention.
Obama on the Peace Corps, from his website (with no mention of fundamentally retooling the Peace Corps with hundreds of billions of dollars):
Expand the Peace Corps: Obama will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011. He will work with the leaders of other countries to build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries.
I think it's good to keep our politicians to their word, but here you're being way overly literal.
Thanks for the response.
I don't think I'm being over-literal. Two of the three scenarios that I discussed in my July 19th post assumed that AmeriCorps would be just as well funded as the military and yet I assumed that this would amount to only about 1/4th to 1/6th as high a budget as the military.
I think that Obama just gets carried away with his over-promising, not realizing what it would mean to actually do what he proposes to do.
I am genuinely eager to know more about McCain -- about whether some of his apparent flip-flops are revealing, about his commitment to family values in light of his own family history, about whether he is truly smart enough to be a good president (see his class rank in college), about whether he will surround himself with better people than some recent presidents have, etc.
I suppose I can understand why this coming election is already turning into an yeah/nea vote on Obama, but I really was hoping to see some McCain only discussion in a setting like this.
I think McCain's time has come and gone. It would have been wonderful for him to win the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2000. But now he appears to have wandered in from another planet. And he looks and sounds very old, worse than Reagan in his post-presidency.
Sorry to be so negative, because I think McCain is obviously a great man in many ways. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think he will be a great or even adequate president.
And regardless of Obama's old "March 2008" withdrawal plan, the story this morning is that Maliki explicitly agrees with Obama's 16 month timetable.
I believe it was Dave Weigel at Reason magazine who said that the more he watched McCain and the Republicans this year the more convinced he's become that "McCain was handed a gold watch that will explode after everyone else has left the room," or words to that effect.
What McCain really needs is a Lee Atwater type to absolutely slam him every time he does something stupid. His campaign hasn't been able to do this yet. It doesn't seem to have the killer instinct.
For the most part I agree with you that McCain has been a rather subpar candidate. And I too question what kind of president this guy would be and how smart he really is.
But you have to give him credit on a few issues. He advocated the surge early on at a time when it was unpopular to do so. He has generally always supported free trade and limited government spending. And I think he would appoint better (by my defintion) SCOTUS justices than Obama would. He's also a (recent?) supporter of the right to bear arms.
So he's getting my vote although I think he's going to lose.
http://tinyurl.com/yullcu
How anyone can view McCain's views on immigration, bilingualism, and racial preferences as remotely conservative is beyond me. Maybe libertarian by some stretch of reasoning, but not conservative. His views on these issues are identical to Obama's.
The two best-run campaigns in my memory -- 1988 and 1992 -- had the same pattern, in part because the Clinton campaign in 92 modeled their effort on the Bush campaign in 88.
Each had a topic of the week (usually a weakness of the opponent) and every day for a week they hammered that point in talking to the press, op-eds, and campaign ads.
By the time the oppposing side developed a response, the winning campaign was on to the next topic. Each issue gained 0.5-2 % for the campaign, leading to a victory.
Can one imagine any serious Presidential candidate saying such a thing today? Sadly no.
You do realize that's because saying such a thing would turn the "serious Presidential candidate" into a non-serious Presidential candidate. Becoming xenophobic and putting one's head in the sand by ignoring other cultures and languages isn't exactly the best way to work with globalization. Maybe we just have different worldviews, but "living in a polyglot boarding house" doesn't strike me as a pejorative.
If McCain were to throw away his "reformist" perspective and argue fervently of the need to enforce immigration law, I think it would be a winning issue. He would be demonized by the media, but he would have the majority of the public on his side.
Why doesn't he do it? What is he afraid of?
What McCain really needs is a Lee Atwater type to absolutely slam him every time he does something stupid. His campaign hasn't been able to do this yet. It doesn't seem to have the killer instinct."
Yes, what this campaign needs is more racist appeal. Even Atwater repenbted before his death. Is this the best you can offer for Senator McCain; "kill the opponent"? A very telling admission.
McCain has the opportunity to run a strong campaign that moves far away from the Atwater/Rove character-demolishing, smearing, and rumor mongering. I see those tactics from a party with no more ideas and an utter failure of policy as the legacy of 8 years.
I mean, McCain was one of the very few in the congress who could reasonably claim the mantle of an outsider who worked on principle, but that legacy was overshadowed by his close ties to Bush after being embarassed by Bush during the 2000 primaries. I would like McCain just for the divided government concept that helps to balance budgets and rein in spending.
As for McCain, I think his career has been honorable, taking positions that he thought were right, even if they went against the political preferences of his own party.
"McSame"? At least try to be more clever. "Bush's third term?" Give me a freaking break.
Finally, the denigration of his military service by Democrats this year has been absolutely despicable. Four years ago, John Kerry's military service was oh, so important for Democrats. How dare anyone say anything about it? This year, of course, John McCain's entire military career is considered either irrelevant or worthy of derision (and this from the party that was prepared to welcome him as Kerry's running mate a short 4 years ago).
I agree that the 100 years comment is being distorted, but didn't Lee Atwater apologize for appealing to racism in '88? If I'm remembering that wrong, I'll stand corrected.
I also agree that McCain's career has been honorable, both military and political. But who's denigrating his military career? If anything even remotely similar to the vicious smear campaign that was run against Kerry's military career has been going on, I've somehow missed it entirely, so please give me a head's up.
Evidentially you're not comfortable with America as a sovereign country. How is that the US must accommodate other cultures in the name of globalization, but not other countries? For example Japan accepts few immigrants and makes very difficult for a foreigner to get Japanese citizenship. Ditto for Korea. In fact no country would think that reducing itself to "polyglot boarding house" is in any way desirable.
Name me one country where you can jump the border and then demand to be made a legal resident, demand services in your native language, ballots in your native language. Could you get that in Russia? In France? Anywhere?
If American is merely a "polyglot boarding house," then it essentially has the status of an Antarctica, or the high seas. It ceases to remain a nation-state with common values, language and creed. In short, it's a nothing but a trading zone. Is this what you want?
Could not agree more. McCain would be great if he could do all of his campaigning as a guest on Meet the Press or Hardball. Unfortunately for him, people vote for politicians that inspire them. I expect his convention speech to be a complete failure. He would probably have a better chance of getting elected if he were not required to give one.
I'm with LM -- who denigrated McCain's military career? I have seen comments that his career isn't a qualification for the Presidency (a debatable point), but nothing at all denigrating it (and I read the usual suspect liberal sites). Obama and Clinton never indicated anything but respect for his service (at least not that I saw).
Considering Bud Day is running around supporting Sen. McCain (with, it appears, the approval of Sen. McCain), I don't think the campaign is in much of a position to complain about attacks on military records even they were being made.
According to The New York Times, "In 1988," Mr. Atwater said, "fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate.' I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not."
I don't read that apology as Atwater admitting the 1988 Bush campaign was racist.
As for denigrating John McCain's military record, we have had comments this year from Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senator Tom Harkin, and most recently, General Wesley Clark--and that, of course, is excluding the moonbattery from the Kool-Aid drinking left.
Obama has political charisma approaching that of JFK, but without experience approaching JFK's Senate and military experience.
McCain has Senate and military experience comparable and even exceeding JFK's, but without anything approaching JFK's political charisma.
For better or for worse, I think charisma wins elections.
What did Rockefeller and Harkin say? Didnt Clark just say McCain's military career does not qualify him to be President? How is that denigrating his military record?
How is that the US must accommodate other cultures in the name of globalization, but not other countries?
I don't know where you get "in the name of globalization," but the rest of it is written on the Statue of Liberty. That doesn't rise to the level of "must," of course, but it does kind of establish an ethic, don't you think?
As for other issues, well. I'm a libertarian conservative and Obama's the most "liberal" member of the US Senate. Nuff said!
Here are the quotes—
Senator Jay Rockefeller: "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.
"What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
Senator Tom Harkin:"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."
General Wesley Clark: "He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”
As for the Kool-Aid drinkers, how about this example, "Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda tape for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the "I was tortured" card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience. Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience. Again, it's not nice to say say, but we're not running for class president here. We deserve real answers, not emotional outbursts designed to quell the questions."
It's not an area I know much about. I'm not sure it's in any of your wheelhouses either, but you have bigger wheelhouses.
I haven't made up my mind yet who to vote for. Do I have to conclude that the Constitution gives me no choice (among the major party candidates, in any event)?
As for "copying from shill rightist screed blogs" I quoted from newspapers in West Virginia and Iowa and from the Politco.
And aren't we shifting goal posts here. I made my comment about Obama surrogates denigrating McCain's military service.
But to answer your cheap political question, getting shot down doesn't prove much. How you handle yourself as a POW certainly does--which leads to the blogger quote I also supplied--which basically accuses McCain of treason--but hey, that's just a crazy blogger and we shouldn't take that seriously at all.
Merriam-Webster defines "denigrate" this way:Senator Rockefeller's and Senator Harkin's comments certainly meet the second definition and arguably meet the first. General Clark's comment seems to meet the second definition.
As for the blogger's comments (the first I found, I had no desire to explore the fever swamps), it absolutely meets both.
It is possible to claim that someone's achievement or experience is not relevant to a particular job without denigrating it.
If I say "Winning a Nobel Prize in physics is not a qualification for playing shortstop," I'm not denigrating the Nobelist.
I'm curious, though -- do you really think that such comments approach anything like the level of the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry? I don't mean to set the bar that low, but you did mention it in your first post. I don't see Obama or his campaign even remotely approaching that.
Harkin essentially says it is better not to have life long soldiers as President because they are conditioned to view all things through military and war experiences. This clearly does not attack anyone's reputation, nor does it belittle his achievements. It is a valid argument that life long soldier's may be predisposed to solving conflicts through war, while pesident should use diplomacy if possible.
Both Clark and Harkin's comments are completely respectful.
This is a valid argument
Can you define your use of "hugely greater," here?
However, McCain served in the United States Navy from 1958 to 1981.
Kerry served in the United States Navy from 1966 5o 1970.
I would say under most circumstances that 22 years is "hugely greater" than 4 years.
i don't recall hearing many, or even a few, republicans defending kerry from the swift boaters. if repubicans didn't consider kerry's military service a point in his favor, why should democrats consider it a point in mccains favor? your basic position seems to be "military service only counts when it benefits republicans"
Yes, I'm planning to write on the Chin article when I get time in August. here are some very preliminary thoughts, subject to change.
Most of the Chin article is about two 1930s statutes, one of which grants citizenship to people born in the canal zone (even the sections of his paper that start off talking about more central constitutional issues quickly devolve into discussions of statutes of marginal relevance). The 1930s statutes that Chin relies on are not the primary basis for McCain's status as a natural born citizen under the constitution (or under the Tribe/Olsen opinion), a status based on the original constitution, not a 1930s statute on the canal zone.
Chin consistently confuses naturalization with being natural born (something that he is not alone in doing in the immigration literature), arguing that, unless there is a statute naturalizing McCain he can't be a natural born citizen.
As an originalist matter at least, that is wrong. A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen anyway, so I don't see what statutes have to do with McCain's candidacy. And Congress has never passed a statute that says that persons born abroad are not natural born citizens, despite what Chin and some confused courts have said.
From about 1795 through 1940 there was no statute granting citizenship to natural born citizens and yet a lot of Presidents (such as Abe Lincoln) were born during that period. Just like McCain, they based their natural born citizenship on the Constitution, not on a federal statute.
Chin does not deal entirely fairly with even the statutes he analyzes so vigorously. First, the two of the most analyzed ones merely "declare" that certain people are citizens, which is usually (though not always) used by Congress to show that the statute is not necessarily changing the law. Chin largely skirts this problem with his argument.
Second, his reading of statutes is a literal textualist one (except for implicitly his conveniently nontextualist reading of "declare"). Literal textualism is not a jurisprudential approach advocated by anyone I've read lately, though I hear it referred to occasionally. Original public meaning is usually taken to mean that one reads the statute as someone reading it would have.
I've now done a fair amount of research and the originalist material showing that someone born abroad of native parents in service of the sovereign was considered a natural born citizen is truly overwhelming. Indeed, it was recognized consistently in England from 1351 on.
If not for the 14th amendment, Obama's claim under the "natural born citizen" clause of the original constitution would be weaker than McCain's, because though born in the US, his father was a foreign national; thus, Obama's natural allegiance was potentially split. Indeed, at the time of the framing, treating someone born abroad of native parents in service of the sovereign was in some respects even better established than being born in the country, because the rule for those born in the country had several exceptions (eg, relating to allegiances of parents), while the status of children born abroad of two native parents in service of the sovereign had no exceptions: they were and always had been treated as natural born citizens.
The one thing that Chin's article does show is that there is a lot of Supreme Court dicta on immigration cases that is just plain ridiculous. It is hard to know what a court would do with this dicta (which points in general in Chin's direction).
So, as an originalist matter, the case for McCain is much stronger than I thought even a few months ago, but the case law in the Warren court era (and immediately after) seems to have strayed quite far from original meanings of citizenship.
John Kerry has yet to be heard this year returning the favor.
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010005
This is the reason I intensely dislike both parties
"...spitting distance of beating Al Qaeda?"
I'm guessing that's because like everyone else outside of the right wing blogosphere, he has no idea there's this despicable left wing campaign to denigrate McCain's military service -- because obviously there's no such thing. I'll bet you [$YOU TELL ME] that if Kerry's ever asked (the only way we'll know for sure he's aware of it) about McCain's loyalty, the legitimacy of McCain's medals and commendations, or the accuracy of McCain's narrative of his military service (i.e., the kind of accusations the swift boaters made), he'll come to McCain's defense.
The Face the Nation transcript perhaps provides even a better source than MediaMatters.
To put General Clark's comments completely into context, it is perhaps best to start with Senator Lieberman's interview that preceded General Clark's comments:
General Clark, who appeared separately and after Senator Lieberman, responded in this exchange with Bob Schieffer:The way I read is that General Clark doesn't think McCain has foreign policy and command experience and that it doesn't matter that Obama doesn't either because Obama knows how to communicate.
Amazingly vapid.
That's consistent with my recollection. I agree he's not admitting the Bush campaign was racist, but it's a fair inference that he wouldn't blame anyone who got the impression it was.
when someone denigrates mccains service, i fully expect him to. but, assuming your examples are the worst out there, no one has come close to the level of swift boaters in veracity or prominence.
I'm confused. Haven't you been arguing that Wesley Clark denigrated McCain's military service? Because that transcript couldn't make it clearer how incorrect that is. But if I've misunderstood, and what you've really been trying to get at is that Wesley Clark is a pathetically inept spokesman for Obama's candidacy, then I apologize for the confusion. You're absolutely right.
A Daily Kos diarist claims McCain and his being a POW is somehow not heroic because McCain had no choice in the matter.
Jeffrey Klein in the Huffington Post appears to be claiming that McCain got off softly as a POW and is embelishing his military record.
Ben Smith at the Politico has chronicled it here.
Or does Ben Smith share the same fantasy the "the rightwing blogosphere" and I do?
When we hold a national referendum on which of McCain and Kerry made the longer, more heroic sacrifice, you have my word that like everyone else I'll be voting for McCain. But what exactly was your point?
Because you're the only one who believes Democrats are denigrating McCain! It really shows your blind partisanship that you see this phantom denigration yet do not believe Atwater at least exploited racism in 1988.
I am not alone. I realize we likely cross-posted, but I will add Andrew Sullivan to the list of those who agree with me.
And I don't think you or anyone else would accuse Andrew Sullivan of being blindly partisan.
made you sound like the very swiftboaters who wore purple bandaids on the floor of the republican convention in 2004 in order to nakedly denigrate john kerry's purple hearts. perhaps I should have been clearer.
but i didn't realize that made me a member of the democratic underground. whatever that is.
that said, i believe hawkins was asking what your point was with the statement to which I was responding, not to your strangely wounded response to me.
That's not much different than relying on a comment here. That hardly makes for a concerted effort by Dems to denigrate McCain. Now, if kos himself made such a post, that's a different story (just as it would be very different if one of the posters here said some of the things the commenters say).
I'm not sure about the "got off softly" part, but he is challenging McCain's overall service record.
His examples duplicate yours to a substantial extent. His additional ones represent the real fringe, hardly mainstream Democrats. Nor have these comments received the press attention or advertising of the Swift Boat thugs.
Sullivan's only sources were Politico and the Wesley Clark interview (which I think is erroneously included).
Again, the notion that these few examples are somehow equivalent to the Swift Boaters strikes me as far-fetched.
I never said there's nobody out there flinging this sort of crap. I said I hadn't seen it, and this is in fact the first I'm seeing any of it except for the Wesley Clark comment. It's a pretty big internet, and there are plenty of sleaze bags on both sides of the aisle. But so far this is nothing more than isolated shots in the dark by the sort of creeps who trade in that stuff. The real question is what happens on day two. We know how quickly and energetically the Swift Boat Campaign was taken up by the mainstream right. I guess we'll have to wait and see if that happens on the left. But it hasn't yet and I predict it won't. Still, I've been wrong before, and if I am again I'll admit it. But until then, you've shown us nothing that doesn't qualify as "dog bites man."
(BTW, I'd also dispute that, apart from the Americablog piece, anything you've shown is remotely comparable to the Swift Boat stuff in its rank vitriol. But that's an argument I'm content to save for another day, if any when it actually ripens into something relevant.)
I don't read Kos so maybe I am wrong (simple Google searches today found every cite I have provided), but a diarist on Kos appears to have posting authority much akin to say, Jim Lindgrin or Orin Kerr, since there are comments following the post.
Now maybe Kos allows diarists without too much restriction (I neither know nor care) but I certainly don't have a separate comment thread when I post here.
What do you think this is?
On a side note, Romney just denigrated Obama's good works by saying his days a 'community organizer' do not qualify him to be president.
Part of the reason why he won't do that is because he's corrupt: he most likely gets donations from those who profit from illegal activity. He's also quite sheltered, and he might actually think that the NCLR is something other than a far-left group. And, he might actually believe some of the other idiotic things he says.
However, it might be possible to force him to take that position by making it very difficult for him to support "reform".
To do that, go to one of his appearances, press him on this issue, then upload his response to video sharing sites. Others have tried to pin him down and failed, but surely someone who's familiar with asking real questions can do a better job.
It's low enough that Karl Rove could have authored the piece, for all we know.
I'll condemn anyone who does it, as loudly as I can.
I read kos but have never posted there. As I understand it, the only ones equivalent to the professors here are those whose posts appear on the left hand side of the page. The right hand side contains posts which any person who registers can make. Aside from the registration requirement, those commenters are the equivalent of you and me. Only not as good. :)
Dave,
That depends on what the definition of "it" is.
- I'd certainly condemn, as I do now, anything like the Americablog piece, even if it's factually accurate (I don't know whether McCain ever made such a video, but it doesn't matter).
- I thought the Huffington Post piece was pointless, but mostly innocuous, since it disputed a New York Times article, not McCain's personal version of events. In fact it seemed to rely on McCain's book to dispute the Times' version. I think there may have been some incidental material I found mildly annoying.
- The Kos diarist was just clueless. He was mostly asking, not telling. I disagree with how he defines heroism, but there's nothing inherently offensive about his definition. The quality of the diary was beneath that of the average comment on this thread. It's not worth spending even this much time on, except to point out that it's a big deal only to those for whom it validates their deterministic narrative about the left.
- The Rockefeller comment buried a fair point beneath an abysmal tone and, I suspect, an inadvertently offensive implication.
- I think attempts to shout down comments like Harkins' or Clark's for allegedly denigrating McCain's military service should be condemned.
have to say I'm in complete agreement with that, but then, are you sure that's the word you wanted to use?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veracity
congrats on catching a typo! you deserve a gold star!
it should be "voracity"
And Sarah Palin should go camping with me.
What good works? I haven't heard a lot from Obama supporters about this period aside from a vague idea that he's a good guy for doing whatever it was he did before he went into electoral politics instead of being a corporate lawyer.
The cravenness of the attack aside, it is also incredibly ignorant. McCain was shot down flying at 4,500 feet while dropping unguided bombs on power plant in the Hanoi area, at the time one of the most heavily defended places on earth. Not that he would have been that much safer at 35,000 feet as North Vietnam's air defenses (including 45,000 ft. ceiling surface-to-air missiles and advanced Soviet fighters) were rapidly reaching their peak in late 1967.
John Kerry has yet to be heard this year returning the favor."
Because:
1. There have been no comparable attacks on McCain; and
2. The Swiftboaters, i.e., Bud Day, are now part of the McCain campaign.
By the way, this thread, in both the Obama and McCain sub-threads, is now almost 24 hours old, and there is still not one positive statement attesting to McCain's qualifications or judgement. Pretty telling admission that his supporters are silent on this matter.
You expected something more from Jay Rockefeller?????
(1) On the military, he's got a strong track record on the issues that matter most. Following 9/11, he wanted to expand the military; Bush didn't and we're paying the cost now. He's also been a perceptive critic of Bush's handling of the post-invasion from a perspective that indicates he wants to win, not just make political points.
(2) On social issues, he's conservative but not doctrinaire. Given his personal life, how could he be? I think it's a fair statement to say that most parents/voters believe that they should be able to pass on the middle-class values of success without: (a) constant attacks from the relativist left esp. from schools; and (b) without cramming down their values from the federal govt.
(3) On economic issues, he's generally right. Free trade is an immense good, but it causes dislocation for some. Better to treat the symptom than go all Hoot-Smawley. Deficit reduction, attacks on pork and a simplified tax code are all good things. He fought the tax cuts from Bush because he had a different (dare I say better) priorities, but in a struggling economy he's not putting a large damper back on. Is that perfect? No. Understandable? Yes.
(4) On immigration, he wants to achieve a solution. Sometimes he fails to give those with issues over the size, scope and expense of illegal immigration their due, but his version of the middle ground is better than the Dems. I'm for pretty open legal immigration, but after the problems after '86, the lack of political will, and the perception that both parties just want to keep driving down wages in the sectors most affected, enforcement needs stressing as well -- particularly on employers.
(5) Throughout his career, McCain has shown a capacity to work both sides of the aisle, to adopt to events as they change, and to get these things done. Obama has yet to DO any of those things with the possible exception of the Lugar bill re: nukes.
(6) McCain also clearly stands for something in addition to or beyond his own self-aggrandizement. He's put his political career at risk in ways that are foreign to 99.9% of the elected establishment.
(7) McCain will demand competence. Bush didn't and we see where that got us. I think Obama is slightly better than Bush on this score, but it is too beholden to the traditional democratic interests and ideologies to really make a mark.
(8) McCain is right on judges. I don't want right-leaning judges because they'll simply put their own biases into constitutional law; I want them because they generally throw more issues into the political realm where WE can make a difference, debate them and move forward with sloppy, non-doctrinaire compromises. And that's the essence of a working democracy.
(11) McCain understands foreign policy in a way that neither Bush nor Obama ever appeared to. He's been talking to world leaders for twenty-odd years; Obama can't even show up to run a committee on one of the most pressing issues this country faces.
(12) McCain is on the right side of the '60s divide. To their detriment, the Democrats just can't seem to get over 1968. This primary would have been great time to do it, but once again they picked a candidate who veered left in the primary and is saddled with an updated version of the same cultural baggage. At some point, they may fully get the memo that Americans don't like being told they're the problem in a world filled with genocide, corruption, lack of sacrifice from the developed world, etc. Perfect? No. A general source of good? We like to think so.
Latest edition of Guinness Book of World Records:
"Spitting distance: David Starr...."
Mrs. Hoosier came around here looking for you. She was muttering something about Sarah Palin.
But he's many, many times more eloquent then Bush. It's a low bar, but it's what we have.
Yes, what this campaign needs is more racist appeal.
You said it, not me. I said they needed to humiliate Obama for his amateurish and unserious policy positions, blatant politically motivated flip-flops and almost complete lack of serious experience.
If that's racist, call me Louis Farrakan.
Even Atwater repenbted before his death. Is this the best you can offer for Senator McCain; "kill the opponent"? A very telling admission.
I won't even get in to Atwater's "repentance" which I doubt you'd understand on several levels anyway, but yes, "Killer Instinct" is a very important political commodity and no person who's ever won the Presidency has lacked it.
So in short, yes, I believe in hardball politics, especially when self-righteous morons such as yourself glibly accuse people of racism with no evidence in an attempt to score political points and then have the sheer audacity to accuse the other side of playing too dirty.
Oh, and Atwater didn't do the Willie Horton ad that you were so upset about
because it made your guy losebecause it was "racist". It was an outside group. Oh, and Dukakis would have lost anyway.And what exactly makes a statement like "morons such as yourself" not moronic? You don't sound as doddering and half-dead as McCain, so surely you have a good reason even if it's because you aren't given to an appreciation of contour and subtlety.
Pretty strange that Atwater would apologize for an ad that he had nothing to do with, eh?
I told her that after some phone call you ran out abruptly, grinning and humming "God Bless America." I didn't say anything wrong, did I?
Thank you for your revealing post, in which you counter mine with nothing but reflexive invective. I am not a "liberal", nor a "moron" (remember the parable of the man who called another "fool"), nor was I a supporter of Dukakis, but I do have a pretty good understanding of repentance. Any righteousness I have is not from my own efforts. I will be pleased to discuss theology with you if you like.
I didn't counter yours. You would have had to make a point in order for me to counter it. You didn't make a point. You accused me of racism and declared the conversation over. That's not an argument, that's a pose that someone without an argument takes.
But McCain is just old, tired, and boring. He doesn't inspire Republicans and doesn't provide leadership. He has no message and despite the fact that he's running several concurrent national ads (and Obama is running no ads), Obama is beating him in earned media 3:1. Even this thread talks about Obama more than McCain!
This election will go down as being a major missed opportunity for Republicans. The only plus side is that the Dems are so focused on Obama that the DNC has virtually no money this season, whereas the RNC has a ton. I suspect that once the conventions are over and Obama has a solid statistical lead, the RNC will pull the plug on funding for McCain, effectively conceding to Obama, and will focus on trying to preserve as many House, Senate, and Governor seats as possible. That way, when Obama implodes within the first two years of his administration (which will, without a doubt, happen), we're poised to take back Congress.
Now, we know that McCain graduated fifth from the bottom in his class, so, we can Zarkov that he really had failed and only graduated because he benefited from AA (Admiral's Action) or he deserved to fail, and only got through by luck. We also know that naval aviators are usually recruited from the top of the class. Again, McCain benefited from AA. And finally, he crashed three planes on his own indicating that he was not such a good flyer. FWIW
If the Iraqi government truly says that they can survive a US withdrawal, then we have won the Iraq war. But. Does Der Spiegel have it right? They are the only ones who say Maliki endorsed Obama's 16 month pullout plan. Others dispute Der Spiegel's slant on the story.
The American war aim in Iraq is to deny the country to Al Quada by establishing a decent and democratic Iraqi government strong enough to control the country. We are close to achieving that aim. Talk about American pullout by the new Iraqi government is a very encouraging sign pointing to success. Let's celebrate it as such.
"Does Der Spiegel have it right? They are the only ones who say Maliki endorsed Obama's 16 month pullout plan. Others dispute Der Spiegel's slant on the story."
No it's a mangled quote deliberate manipulated to make Obama look good.
What's missing is Maliki's caveat "if conditions continue to improve".
________________________
*Kristol, Krauthammer and the Kagan clan.
"Now, we know that McCain graduated fifth from the bottom in his class, so, we can Zarkov that he really had failed and only graduated because he benefited from AA (Admiral's Action) or he deserved to fail, and only got through by luck. We also know that naval aviators are usually recruited from the top of the class. Again, McCain benefited from AA. And finally, he crashed three planes on his own indicating that he was not such a good flyer. FWIW"
1. Frankly I don't like McCain but where is this info that he graduated *5th* from the bottom? And is that source of information something that can be trusted or simply another example of astroturfing?
2. Unlike the jets of today the jets during the Vietnam War sucked. The crash rate, and death rate, were many times what they are today and that's without combat included.
Additionally McCain was a **naval aviator**.
I challenge you to land a combat jet, at night, in a heavy rainstorm on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier that not only pitches an arc of over 15 feet but also yaws as well.
So before casting aspersions like this I'd suggest you look in a mirror as ask yourself if you're really this stupid.
I am a McCain admirer. I am not a fan of GWB in any way, however. And yet I recall being brought up short when I overdid the criticism of Bush's decision to serve in the Texas Air National Guard. I made a comment about how "safe" that choice was. My friend in the aviation field pointed out how dangerous it was to fly the F-102. More were lost in crashes in Vietnam than in combat.
I don't take back the assessment that Bush took a safER path than had he taken his chances with the regular military. But he certainly was in more danger than was, say, Cheney.
But since Eli (above) seems to be including the plane lost in the Forrestal fire as one of the three McCain lost "on his own," I think your slap-down was quite gentle.
General McClellan (Civil War) graduated at the top of his class, but could make no progress towards winning despite a large advantage in numbers. It took General Grant, who graduated at the bottom of his class, to do the hard stuff needed to get the War won.
McCain knew early on what was needed to get the war won in Iraq, and said so.
I presume there are some who will pretend to believe that the editor in question is telling the truth when he says he objects to the style...?
The corollary is the story on the Huffington Post that a New Yorker writer was excluded from Obama's press plane, perhaps because of the controversial cover cartoon last week. It could also be due to the fact that there were more than 200 media members seeking 40 spots on the plane.
To my friends on the left, does it give you pause, do you question your allegiances, do you feel the need to reevaluate at all, the facts on which you base your beliefs... when it is routinely shown that the facts pushed out to the consumer's of news are so slanted as to NOT inform, but to influence, decidedly in your direction?
Its HARD to admit one has been duped. As a conservative, Ive had to do so a few times. But its better to recalibrate and progress, than to believe a known falsehood.
If I were a true believer of the left, I would be even MORE skeptical of "facts" in the fishwraps. David Shipley apparently thinks he can do your thinking for you.
And FWIW (Alert: Rabbit trail) -- Have the claims of the Swiftboaters been disproved? Why hasn't Kerry sued them? Did anyone claim Pickens' prize? Where is The Hat? SBers are an exampe of cultural rewrite of history. The implication is that Swiftboating = promoting lies to derail Kerry. That is not correct.
Using "Swiftboating" is a Democrat code for dirty lying politics in an ad hominum manner on their opposition. Too bad someone brought it up with John McCain.
John McCain has more positive character, integrity, wisdom, substance and experience than BHO. Get real. Obama has NO experience. He didn't even bother to do the job he did have in the Senate (for what -- way less than 200 days). If he was so concerned about Afghanistan, why didn't he use his position in the Senate NATO committee to fix the problem? Or even inform himself. This man simply does NOT KNOW what he is doing. I want adults -- not kids in short pants and 1960s rejects children represnting America to the world and making decisons for me.
It's nearly impossible to prove
But Pickens has been backing and filling and crawfishing and slip-sliding and side-stepping and hemming and hawing and doing anything he can to avoid paying up.
Throughout that period, I seldom missed a day reading the NYT from front page to back. It was part of my education in current events.
During election campaigns, the speeches of both candidates were generally printed verbatim, as were transcripts of debates and interviews like on Meet The Press. (Major Supreme Court decisions were also printed complete with dissents.)
IMO, it would have been inconceivable back then for the NYT to pull the kind of stuff we are discussing. Ike and Nixon got equal time with Adlai and JFK. That was despite the Times' well-known antipaty for all things Republican.
I hate to sound like an old fart, but wouldn't it really be nice to have the NYT return to its traditional role as the "paper of record"? What the candidates actually say is the "news". Not just what the NYT deigns to print.
b. In reverse order
1. Shot down in Vietnam
2. Plane destroyed by a loose rocked from another plane on a carrier deck
No fault for either of those
3. Flamed out in a trainer on the way to an Army/Navy game
4. Took out a bunch of electrical transmission wires on the Iberian Peninsula
5. Screwed up a landing into Corpus Christi Bay
Rather than spell out his plan for the future, for the most part McCain's article is backward looking, outlining how, in his opinion, we got to where we are, but not how he plans to solve the problems that remain.
The key to victory for McCain is focusing on an energy plan that emphasizes drill now, algea later. Obama isn't going to win over the war hawks, and McCain is going to take the climate change vote, but there are enough voters in the middle that are concerned about economic issues to swing the election to either side. Obama has the edge with these voters now, but they can be pried away, because Obama's platform will do nothing to lower energy prices, now or in the future. If McCain can convince these voters that his plan can reduce oil prices, while still paying at least lip service to future sources of new energy then he can take the election. Because voters understand that lower energy prices mean a healthier economy.
None of Obama's policies, and the voters understand this, will result in a healthier economy, all they will do is try to put bandaids on where poeple are hurting. If that is all that can be done, then the voters will settle for that. They just need to be convinced we can do better.
Having read McCain's piece (in comparison to Obama's), I think this is a very fair criticism and a