blog advertising is good for you
On Distractions, Or, If You Hide In A Smoke Screen, Make Sure It's Not Toxic
It has been an extraordinarily bad week for John McCain, what with his interest in Sarah Palin’s boobs apparently keeping him from being sufficiently aware of the “fundamental soundness” of the economy...but luckily for McCain, the news cycle turns; and a hotel bombing in Pakistan might be the opening his campaign thinks it needs.
With that in mind, expect the next week leading up to Friday’s Presidential debate to be full of references to McCain’s favorite subject...“the transcendent challenge of our time—Islamofascism”...or something eerily similar.
His campaign is convinced this is the strongest place for him to make his argument for election—but what if it is not?
As we anticipate what is coming next from McCain, let’s remind ourselves just how much of a foreign policy expert McCain really is—and let’s do it using McCain’s own words.
McCain likes to talk about how he was the most vocal critic of the war...until January 2007, when Mr. Bush finally listened to McCain and adopted The Surge.
It’s a great story...and if it were true it would be even better.
“...I’ll teach you to kick me!”
“I don’t need you to teach me.
I already know how.”--Edgar Kennedy and Chico Marx in “Duck Soup”
Now I’m not as expert-y as John McCain, but here’s what I told my friends before the war started:
Try to imagine if the UK decided that our government had gone completely crazy, and that for our own good we needed their troops to remove our government and temporarily occupy the US until we could get ourselves back on the right track.
No matter how crazy our government had actually become, the instant that news was broadcast in this country it would become the biggest hunting season you ever saw on the beaches of New England, with millions of heavily armed Americans converging on the invading forces.
What makes you think Iraqis would act any differently?
McCain, the expert, was certain that Iraqis wouldn’t even fight...and he obviously never expected an insurgency:
"Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
--John McCain on “Face the Nation”, September 15, 2002
The guy who was supposedly such a critic of the war was also one of the co-sponsors of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that got the war started in October of 2002.
And although he denies it now, during the runup to the war he wasn’t complaining about the number of troops to be deployed:
"But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991."
--John McCain on “Face the Nation”, September 15, 2002
When Robert Byrd questioned the logic of the war on the floor of the Senate, McCain rose to respond: "...when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America."
McCain was also very comfortable with how things were going...at first:
"I have no qualms about our strategic plans. I thought we were very successful in Afghanistan..."
--John McCain, in an editorial he wrote for the Hartford Courant, March 5, 2003
“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight. ... It won’t be long...it’ll be a fairly short period of time.”
--John McCain on ABC, April 9, 2003
When questioned, McCain even defended the propriety of the “Mission Accomplished” banner on the June 11, 2003 edition of Fox News’ Your World With Neil Cavuto:
NEIL CAVUTO: Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.
McCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?
Later in 2003, despite being a self-described critic of the war, he remained certain we were on the right track:
“Let there be no doubt: victory can be our only exit strategy. We are winning in Iraq.”
--John McCain, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, November 5, 2003
Al-Qaeda supporters are Sunni; Iranians are predominantly Shi’a.
That makes it highly unlikely that Iranians are training Al-Qaeda insurgents.
I know that, you probably know that, Joe Lieberman knows that...but for some reason John McCain...the foreign policy expert...can’t seem to remember which is which...and now he doesn’t have Lieberman standing at his shoulder to set him straight.
Of course, we are told, that was just a “senior moment”.
“...The last man nearly ruined this place,
He didn’t know what to do with it;
If you think this country’s bad off now,
Just wait’ll I get through with it “--Groucho Marx as Rufus T. Firefly in “Duck Soup”
One way to be right about an issue is to take both sides of the same argument; and this is a technique McCain employs on a regular basis.
An example? McCain was confident in the Bush Administration’s team in September of 2004...
"I think he [President Bush] strengthened our national defenses. I think he has a good team around him."
--John McCain, September 3, 2004
...but three months later, describing his feelings about then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on MSNBC, McCain gave this assessment:
"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence."
--John McCain, December 15, 2004
You may recall McCain said we could stay in Iraq for a hundred years...but you may not recall that in February of 2003, roughly a month before we went in, he said we can’t—and he said it as a way to justify the invasion:
"We cannot keep our forces indefinitely staged in the region. Were we to attempt again to contain Saddam, we would eventually have to withdraw them. The world is full of dangers and, more likely than not, we will need some of those brave men and women to face them down."
You used to be able to see the original quote on John McCain’s Senate website...but for some reason the record is today “inaccessible”. (Big thanks to the PERRspectives Blog for grabbing the quote.)
And for those who think McCain might finally have his diplomatic act together...ummmm...despite his saying he knows the leaders of Latin America (and that Obama doesn’t), Spain is not Venezuela, it is not in Latin America—and they’re our friends.
Let’s sum all this up:
It is more likely than not that McCain will attempt to use the Pakistan bombing this week to position himself as the candidate who has the judgment required to keep America safe from “noun, verb, transcendent challenge”.
This is an opportunity for us, however, to remind voters that the real McCain record has not been one that inspires confidence in his leadership...that he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about much of the time...and that we can’t afford another 50 years of this, or a hundred—or a million.
McCain will take jabs at the truth this week...and it is our job to meet those jabs with parries of our own—and then to follow up with counterstrikes of reality, using his own record to knock back his attacks.
Now get out there, Gentle Reader...and let’s win this thing.














a little homework today...
...means reality hits mccain even harder tomorrow.
--Flip-flops: summer shoes, or McCain strategy?
Say what you will about
Say what you will about Palin, she is a dynamic public speaker who can pack a punch. Of course, Obama is too. However, it will be interesting to see if the two can think on their feet in the debates. If you think this race is about McCain and Obama, you are very wrong.
The Democratic strategy wonks have really missed the mark with their attacks on Palin. They took Reagan as a joke and Reagan took over the country for eight years and his legacy is still hobbling along. However, his legacy might be on its last legs and may soon stumble face first into the gutter on Wall Street.
when i talk about palin...
...i try to remind my conservative friends that her words and her actions don't match...and that her actions are uncommonly anti-conservative.
for example, her views on war are even more "neo-con" in thinking than mr. bush--and even hard-right conservatives are nervous about that prospect.
the same is true with mccain...he is so twisted up by his "evolving" positions on issues that you can often see his front and his back at the same time--and conservatives who are looking for a "true believer" (those for whom he picked palin in the first place) see that evolution...and unfortunately for mccain, many of those voters are not big fans of evolution.
--Flip-flops: summer shoes, or McCain strategy?
Fake C: Do you see any of
Fake C:
Do you see any of the same characterisitcs in Obama? Biden doesn't seem to be under the same mircoscope that Palin is. I suppose the is because of the liberal bias in the press...or because we are well aware of Biden wrinkles and warts.
On the the hand, we don't hear much about McCain's Keating 5 adventures and adjustments on the issues. I suppose that is because of the conservative bias in the press...or because we -- the well informed citizens of the USA with our superior long-term memories -- know all about McCain's past.
What's the big deal with evolution. I don't care if the world is 6 billion years old or 6,000. That's a historical trivia game that has nothing to do with how I will put food on the table tomorrow and money in my 401K for retirement. I know many fine people who think the world is only 6,000 years old, but we don't agrue about it. The Big Bang Theory, evolution and creationism and intelligent design are all theories. What's wrong with all of these being taught in public schools? Does it rub against the grain of the so-called "liberal educaiton?"
a few comments...
...the keating five issue seems to be tough to explain to many voters--although we'll be taking it up before friday.
many of today's voters do not recall the events of that time...and it would be surprising if anyone under the age of 35 could recall the events associated with the past savings and loan scandal, considering that it was more than 20 years ago.
now as to science.
intelligent design is a hypothesis--and it's one that has no evidence to support it. the only argument the promoters of this hypothesis offer is that the beginning of life cannot be explained, so therefore it must have been intelligently designed.
evolution, on the other hand, is an observable phenomenon (ddt doesn't kill mosquitoes anymore, and penicillin doesn't kill everything it used to, eother, to give just two examples), which is why it's raised to the level of a "theory".
same with the big bang-science continues to find clues that this theory may have real validity as a good explanation as to what we can observe today in the universe.
when we argue that "one theory is as good as another" we blur the line between myth and science...and as we reduce our reliance on scientific method as a way of solving problems it will affect the ability of american agriculture to put food on your table--and "theorizing" without scientific rigor will affect the economy as well.
consider that faith-based beliefs have caused many schools to abandon comprehensive sex education and birth control programs to teach "abstinance" instead--even though social scientists have demonstrated the efficacy of those programs and the ineffectiveness of abstinance-only education...and recently, so did sarah palin's own daughter.
faith has its place...but it's not in science class.
--Flip-flops: summer shoes, or McCain strategy?
Post new comment