What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?

McGentrix wrote:

OMG! They are attacking the green zone! We have failed! FAILED!

Are you facetiously (look it up) claiming that we have succeeded?

http://blog.greens.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mission_accomplished.jpg

0 Replies

I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of the war, but is that photo seriously stating that Bush's mission was to cause soldiers to die?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of the war, but is that photo seriously stating that Bush's mission was to cause soldiers to die?

Why are you asking me?

0 Replies

It's all about Nam

by Jane Hamsher

Why is nobody on the barbecue circuit busting McCain on his boners? Somerby pulls back the curtain:

CATCH A RISING STAR: If mordant laughter is what you enjoy, we hope you watched last evening's Hardball.

It's always amusing when Big Major Scribes pretend to discuss the press corps' own conduct. Last night, Chris Matthews triggered such a "discussion." Two top pundits had been called to help settle a question?-a question which is quite important:

MATTHEWS (3/26/08): John McCain had the press in his pocket, some said, with his "Straight Talking Express" eight years ago, but does he have a different straight talk with the press today than he has with the average voter? [sic]

Jennifer Donahue is with the New Hampshire Institute of Politics. And the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, a rising star in our business, he recently profiled McCain.

I got to go to you, Ryan. Is he still getting good press?

Visibly, Lizza flirted with climax during that "rising star" business. But Matthews had asked a very important question: Does the press corps fawn to McCain? In response, a rising star started off in this manner:

LIZZA (continuing directly): I think, for the most part, yes, he is. He has had a couple of bumps. I mean, the dynamic is that everyone is paying attention to Hillary and Barack, and ignoring McCain. So, when McCain does something like go to Iraq and misstate?-you know, confuses the Sunnis and the Shiites?-it sort of makes the news. It is buried inside. You know, we talk about it a little bit. But it doesn't get the amount of play it would if we were in the general election race, where you have that head-to-head dynamic.

Don't worry: They'll murder McCain in the fall! "I mean, for stuff to really take off, you have to have the opponent mentioning it and really, and really highlighting it," Lizza continued. "And because we don't have a real head-to-head general election yet, he is basically doing?-"

At that point, mercifully, Matthews broke in. Lizza was making a common claim: If the Dems aren't trashing McCain for his howlers, well really, our hands are tied.

You thought it was the war hero thing, right? Maybe the "maverick?" No, it's because they're only capable of transcribing an observation if someoene else makes it.

The shameless, open acknowledgment of that is rather gobsmacking.

Hothead MCain: Worse than Bush

by Jane Hamsher

Robert Dreyfuss, writing about McCain in The Nation:

"He's the true neocon," says the Brookings Institution's Ivo Daalder, a liberal interventionist who conceived the idea of a League of Democracies with Robert Kagan. "He does believe, in a way that George W. Bush never really did, in the use of power, military power above all, to change the world in America's image. If you thought George Bush was bad when it comes to the use of military force, wait till you see John McCain.... He believes this. His advisers believe this. He's surrounded himself with people who believe it. And I'll take him at his word."

It's a tribute to the power of barbecue lovin' hackery that people continue to see him as able to unite the country in anything other than opposition to endless war.

C&L has video of Dreyfuss talking about McCain's temperamental bellicosity.

He really is worse than Bush.

0 Replies

I don't think American citizens are bad.
But i am sure the American system is rotten to the core.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

maporsche wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of the war, but is that photo seriously stating that Bush's mission was to cause soldiers to die?

Why are you asking me?

If I was asking you, I would have quoted you.

0 Replies

Quote:

But I was even more struck by Mr. McCain's declaration that "our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital."

These days, even free-market enthusiasts are talking about increased regulation of securities firms now that the Fed has shown that it will rush to their rescue if they get into trouble. But Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ref=opinion

As with McCain's three depressing years of vote-pandering to those he once bravely and honestly called 'agents of intolerance', he's now doing exactly the same thing with the Norquist people.

In 2000, McCain explained to the San Francisco Chronicle,

Quote:

"Certainly, in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Row v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to illegal and dangerous operations."

But in full pander-mode, he now says Roe ought to be overturned.

Here's what Norquist said about McCain in 2006 at newsmax...

Quote:

Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:47 p.m. EDT
Grover Norquist: John McCain Flip-flops Too Much

Republican strategist Grover Norquist is blasting GOP presidential frontrunner John McCain, saying the Arizona maverick is a world-class flip-flopper when it comes to core Republican issues.

"What McCain has done is flip-flopped on the gun issue [and] on the tax issue," Norquist told ABC's "This Week." "He used to be a Reagan Republican on taxes. He's voted against every one of President Bush's tax cuts."

Norquist, who heads up Americans for Tax Reform, said the Arizona maverick has the same problem when it comes to environmental issues and campaign finance reform.

"He used to be a critic of [the] Kyoto [Accord], then he became a champion of Kyoto," Norquist told "This Week." "He used to have the correct policy opposing campaign finance reform before the Keating 5 scandal and then he became a champion of restricting First Amendment rights."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/11/214905.shtml

But not so much anymore. Previously against Bush's tax cuts, now McCain has fallen into doctrinal line...

Quote:

[John McCain] campaigned on being very good on taxes in this election cycle... that he will continue to make [the Bush tax cuts] permanent, that he will veto any tax increase, period, that he wants to cut the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, that he wants to have full expensing, that he wants to abolish the AMT .... In addition to being the Americans for Tax Reform's entire agenda, that is a very pro-growth set of policies he has put forward, and he articulates why they are important."
?-Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, February 27, 2008

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/tax_agenda.html

Regulation of industry and finance markets? Opposition to torture? Not any more.

He's being a good boy.

0 Replies

So basically Blatham, you will not enjoy McCain being president. You could just say that I guess.

0 Replies

I'm looking forward to hearing the reanimated corpse of Charles Dickens speak as guest at the inauguration. He and McCain go way back. I mean way, way back.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So basically Blatham, you will not enjoy McCain being president. You could just say that I guess.

As you know, his chances aren't good though possibly better than any of the others up for the nomination.

It's difficult to figure out what the man is thinking now. He's had to do more brown-nosing than any other contemporary politician I can think of in order to gain adequate support within the conservative/republican world such that he could even hope to gain that nomination. And in that process, he has reversed himself on matters of policy and deep principle.

Those reversals, just a very few of which are noted above, aren't up for question (as reversals). He's done them all and more.

From which it follows that we don't know, as regards many issues (others, where he's been consistent, eg imperialist militarism, we do know) what the hell he'll actually do if he were to attain power. So your question is difficult to answer.

It's not a good sign that he has become so pliable and weak of character such that he meekly falls into line with doctrine and existing power structures and forgoes the honesty and the courage of dissident speech and belief. There's really few politicians on the horizon now who less deserve the mantle of 'maverick' than he does. And it is a phucking depressing tragedy that your party and your movement have broken the poor bastard in this manner.

If he gained power and became, once again, a person with principle and character, then his imagined presidency could have some real benefits to your nation and party. But I think the chances are slim to none.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
So basically Blatham, you will not enjoy McCain being president. You could just say that I guess.

As you know, his chances aren't good though possibly better than any of the others up for the nomination.

It's difficult to figure out what the man is thinking now. He's had to do more brown-nosing than any other contemporary politician I can think of in order to gain adequate support within the conservative/republican world such that he could even hope to gain that nomination. And in that process, he has reversed himself on matters of policy and deep principle.

Those reversals, just a very few of which are noted above, aren't up for question (as reversals). He's done them all and more.

From which it follows that we don't know, as regards many issues (others, where he's been consistent, eg imperialist militarism, we do know) what the hell he'll actually do if he were to attain power. So your question is difficult to answer.

It's not a good sign that he has become so pliable and weak of character such that he meekly falls into line with doctrine and existing power structures and forgoes the honesty and the courage of dissident speech and belief. There's really few politicians on the horizon now who less deserve the mantle of 'maverick' than he does. And it is a phucking depressing tragedy that your party and your movement have broken the poor bastard in this manner.

If he gained power and became, once again, a person with principle and character, then his imagined presidency could have some real benefits to your nation and party. But I think the chances are slim to none.

That's a fine opinion. It's wrong, but a fine one none the less.

0 Replies

I'm here to help.

0 Replies

Blatham, you like to express your opinion regarding the PR machine of the Republican party. What is your opinion of the often used Dem PR of McCain wanting to make the Iraq war last 100 years? That seems to be one of the many battle cries from the left these days. For example:

-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Do you have an issues with these statements?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Blatham, you like to express your opinion regarding the PR machine of the Republican party. What is your opinion of the often used Dem PR of McCain wanting to make the Iraq war last 100 years? That seems to be one of the many battle cries from the left these days. For example:

-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Do you have an issues with these statements?

It's not a bad question. First of all though, there's a historical and readily identifiable PR/propaganda machine set up in and by the conservative camp which doesn't have a comparable reflection on the liberal side. That's something the left has to properly understand and then copy or match or handle in some manner.

Here's the youtube clip (ten seconds or so) where McCain made the '100 years' statement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

The context has McCain saying it would be fine if US troops were there for 100 years if no troops are being injured. He makes the comparison with S Korea and Japan. However, he goes on to mention that it's "a volatile part of the world". Yes it is. And Iraq/Afghanistan are now the most volatile of all, and the most dangerous to Americans, as a consequence of the two invasions. All of which makes his 'so long as no troops injured' proviso pretty empty.

Still, you are correct to point to an element of exaggeration in Dem accounts of what McCain said and meant through omitting that proviso.

But two points can be made here. First, exaggeration of this sort is an absolute staple of political rhetoric ("Wright's speeches are filled with hate"). One would perhaps love to see such exaggerations removed from the discourse, but it won't happen in politics or in soap advertisements or in mother's describing the wonderfulness of their children. All we can do, I think, is draw a line at purposeful falsehoods and otherwise, try to fill in the context to give a fuller picture when 'our' guy is hit.

The second point is that any such statement a politician makes (or that the opposition brings to the foreground) ought to be considered in relation to other statements on the matter the politician has made or other policy stances he/she has taken on similar matters.

And here, McCain is certainly susceptible to serious criticism because of his statements and policy positions on what he thinks are proper uses of the US military and his stances on what the US ought to be doing as regards the middle east. There's simply no question that McCain would be far more willing than the Dem candidates and the US population (perhaps more willing even than Bush, according to his own statements pre 9/11) to use the military in order to reshape the world according to the perceived interests and preferences of the US. That's a critically important matter for the electorate to understand and consider.

I'm sure he deeply regrets this response he made that day. It has allowed the Dems to take a simple sound bite and from it, create an easy to understand narrative which will not fall well on the ears of most americans - precisely like 'god damn america' from Wright or 'the first time I've been proud' from Mrs. Obama.

0 Replies

Karma. I just turned to the WP and there's a piece by Krauthammer on precisely what we are talking about. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702616.html?nav=hcmodule

If you see something in his argument which you find compelling as rebuttal to what I've just written, let me know and we'll take it up.

I recently met the wife of the publisher of the WP and, though her husband and her hold quite different political notions from Krauthammer, they are friends and she described him as "a very kind man". As I really quite liked this lady, I now have a slight soft spot for charles. Slight.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Blatham, you like to express your opinion regarding the PR machine of the Republican party. What is your opinion of the often used Dem PR of McCain wanting to make the Iraq war last 100 years? That seems to be one of the many battle cries from the left these days. For example:

-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Do you have an issues with these statements?

Badeep badeep badeep

0 Replies

Blatham, I was reading the same article when I posted above. I believe this sums it up though.

Quote:

As Lenin is said to have said, "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee news release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. . . . Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

Needless to say, when I see you railing against the Republic PR machine, I think you should give equal time to both sides.

Oh, and stop quoting salon.com so much. It'll rot your brain.

0 Replies

One of Obama's advisors (McPeak) said he hoped we'd be there for a century. Citing our long occupation of Europe and Japan, he says 'this is the way great powers operate'.

Hmmmmm.

What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know