McShame
There's one time-tested way to keep the public's eye away from an embarrassing story --like the lobbyist-rid coat of fleas on John McCain's campaign: change the subject!
Johnny Mack is furiously wanking away on a totally fictional tete a tete between Osama Obama and Iranian President Whateverminajad.
I've got a complicated reaction to McCain's ploy: a strange mix of disappointment, disgust and pity.
Call me naive, but if not so much recently but certainly not that long ago I would have frankly expected a bit more dignity from McCain. He's free to "draw all the distinctions" he wants between himself and the junior senator from Illinois. Arguing that he has more experience, a steadier hand, a better understanding of global relations --whatever-- than Obama, would be fair game.
But this current cynical and completely hypocritical appeal to fear, this effective joining in chorus with George W. Bush (architect of our greatest foreign policy disaster in a generation) to suggest that Obama would be "reckless" enough to sell out America in a chit-chat with the Mullahs is stomach turning.
It's not only dishonest (McCain knows very well that all that Obama is talking about is the use of superpower diplomacy), but it's also stupid. With 80% of Americans thinking the country's on the wrong track, with gas headed to five bucks a gallon, with economic uncertainty now a primary factor in American life, McCain's gonna have to come up with a better line of attack.
If he's this desperate before Memorial Day, just imagine how deep into the gutter we're gonna be by Labor Day!
May 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
McCain and Rove sharing the same stage.
Huckabee jokes about a situation where Obama is threatened by gunfire.
Now they’ve trained their guns on Mrs. Obama, do they really want to have people digging in Cindy McCain’s tax returns, her legal issues?
It’s nowhere near low enough, and that’s the fun - listening to that speech in front of the NRA was like watching the first round of AI, tone deaf.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:00 am
The contest between Obama and McCain may end up being close, because traditionally about half of Americans vote for a president at least as stupid as they are and about half vote for a president at least as smart as they are. It’s an existential choice, really, because every American is capable of being stupid or smart. The one thing Obama has got going for him is that this time around a higher percentage seem to realize how stupid they have been the past 8 years.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Obama takes every criticism off the table, McCain attacks his comment that he would talk with any of the leaders of state sponsored terrorism without any preconditions and you claim “Obama is talking about is the use of superpower diplomacy?” Oh Puhlese. This is not gutter politics or politics of fear any more than Obama’s attacking McCain for his supposed 100 years in Iraq comment. I’ve no dog in this fight, but you have to quit your own “fear mongering.”
May 20th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Obama doesn’t “take every criticiism off the table.” It’s called fighting back effectively. What I would like to hear is how direct diplomacy can be rationally equated with “appeasement.” Bush is totally full of shit - doubly so given his choice of venue. Triply since the White House signaled it was an attack on Obama and then tried to double back when the attack didn’t work out so well. At a moment in history when Bush’s policies have elevated Iran’s regional influence - creating an almost inevitable scenario of Iran as the regional hegemon in alliance with a weaker Shia-dominated Iraq (and I’m not expressing any nostalgia for Saddam as a better deal over the long term, but simply describing the reality that was inherent in Saddam’s fall, whatever eventually precipitated it) - direct talks with Iran are absolutely essential. The truth is that Iran - despite Ahmidenijad and the mullahs - is potentially the most democratic country in the region. In some respects, it already is (low bar.) But the vital civil society that exists just under the Islamist surface, with huge numbers of young, educated people who are thoroughly modern and have nothing invested in the current regime, isn’t going to be strengthened by a policy of isolation. Nixon showed the world something when he went to China - but if you look at what was negotiated there, it pretty much “appeased” China’s version of some contentious realities and did little more than set the stage for future trade and diplomacy. Had a Democratic candidate had tried to suggest an identical strategy in the context of running against Nixon, Tricky Dick himself would certainly have been howling at the moon about Neville Chamberlain and the rest of it. All I can say about that is that if Bush seriously thinks there’s an analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany in 1938 he’s even dumber than I thought. Invoking this kind of alarmist crap at the Knesset - the parliament of the only nuclear armed power in the middle east - is absurd. Ahmadinejad is a nasty piece of work, but the notion that his rhetoric “proves” an existential threat to Israel is opportunistic, hysterical horseshit worthy of a raving wackjob like Norman Podhoretz or Charles Krauthammer but not a U.S. President.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Sorry but you can’t equate the two, GM. McCain has since tried to sweep “100 years” under the rug, but it’s fair game because McCain did say it.
Obama hasn’t changed his position on talking to foreign leaders. Any semi-literate should be able to recognize it’s a sound position. But McCain is attacking it by a) distorting it b) defending the Bush alternative.
Diplomacy is not frightening, although McCain is trying to make it so.
What IS frightening is saying you’re going to carry on a US presence in Iraq for 100 years, then turn around and change that number to 4 years when it’s politically convenient.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:15 am
“…with gas headed to five bucks a gallon”
So, how will “change” help this? Will Obama “change” his mind and vote for oil drilling n ANWR?
May 20th, 2008 at 6:43 am
No he’ll probably use his brain and try to wean us off the oil teat.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Sorry, Randy. We need more specifics.
Saying “change” doesn’t tell us what Obama will do. Does he plan on taxing gasoline to where it won’t be affordable or will he use his Muslim background to cut some deals with the Arabs?
May 20th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Marc: “There’s one time-tested way to keep the public’s eye away from an embarrassing story — like the lobbyist-rid coat of fleas on John McCain’s campaign: change the subject.”
John McCain is for change!
May 20th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I don’t like the guy, but I’m sorry about this.
“Doctors say Sen. Edward Kennedy has brain tumor.”
May 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Or here, Woody:
http://tinyurl.com/3lkh5m
The article is in error where it says Joseph Kennedy died in a plane crash during WWII. He was piloting a craft stuffed with explosives that we was supposed to bail out of, leaving the plane to crash in France. Unfortunately, of course, the explosives went off a wee bit early, and he was obliterated.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Oh please fellas, here is the exact quote:
That is a damn far cry from claiming that he wanted 100 years of war or active combat or anything approaching that. And if anyone is daft enough to say “We can’t keep troops there for 100 years,” please show me the progressive Democrat president and you can pick from Truman to Obama that has called for troops in Germany, Bosnia (oh, remember that “short war?), Korea, Panama… I’m waiting!
May 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
At least Pres. Reagan defeated the enemy then pulled our troops out of Granada.
And, if anyone wants to know, I don’t think that Obama has the experience or backbone to stand up to terrorist states.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
No one wants to know, since you asked.
At least Pres. Reagan defeated the enemy then pulled our troops out of Granada.
We’ve never invaded Spain. Surely I would have seen some bullet holes in the Alhambra or Albaicin.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Okay, Grenada. I didn’t expect a dyslexic to notice.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I’ll never forget the day Reagan defeated the terrorists in Lebanon and then pulled out the troops…
May 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
And a dyslexic didn’t notice. I did.
I wish Reagan’s father had pulled out.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
reg implies that he wanted Reagan to keep forces in the mideast to fight terrorists, so why is he upset when Bush does it?
- - -
Right, Randy.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Woody, if you don’t understand by now the difference between going after Osama in Afghanistan and the mess Bush created in Mesopotamia, nothing anyone ever writes or says in these threads is going to clear your head.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
GM, I know what McCain said. For the sake of brevity I didn’t bother clarifying in my first comment that nobody thinks McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. Duh. Obama’s audiences are too educated for that.
McCain made his point. I don’t believe it’s being misunderstood. It’s fair game. It summarizes McCain’s ample approval of Bush’s war, which he’s made clear in many other ways as well.
Your argument is this:
Obama reminding people of McCain’s words about Iraq = McBush distorting O’s position on diplomacy, and fear mongering.
Like I said, you simply can’t equate the two strategies.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The difference is:
One unjust war that liberals support.
One unjust war that liberals reject.
Propping up opium warlords that liberals support.
Propping up sectarian warlords that liberals reject.
There needs, no doubt, to be an international presence in Afghanistan. The Canadian/American NATO occupation is, however, doing more harm than good.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
One swallow does not a summer make. Watch out for your next typo, Woody.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Why are Republicans so opposed to talking to heads of state? Are they afraid they will be outsmarted? Are they afraid the opponent will make embarrassing points? Are they afraid that the guys across the table will not turn out to be the monsters that they are characterized to be? Are they afraid that their interests/demands are not as irrational as some of the soundbites make them out to be?
I suspect that the answers to all these questions is “yes.” And they cannot afford to relinquish any good boogeymen to whom they can link Democratic opponents. They succeeded in transitioning from the Red Menace of the Cold War to the Crazed Terrorist of our era. Let’s call Saddam Hussein a transition threat [from ally to oil hog to state-based terrorizer].
The problem with the “appeasement” model is that talking with Hitler was not the problem. Do Bush and McCain believe that if the British Prime Minister had not met with Hitler, that he would not have maintained a presence in Czechoslovakia and continued across Europe? While I suppose the argument that just sitting down with an outlaw regime legitimizes it can be made, isn’t it more important to at least rule out the possibility that there are issues that can be addressed with almost all nations. It is possible that Hitler and Nazi Germany were a little more intent on evil aggression than some other enemies might be.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“Why are Republicans so opposed to talking to heads of state?”
That’s exactly why we need a Democrat in office again, who will do radical and dangerous things like meet with communists, and support HREF=”http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0605/ijge/holmstead.htm”>wasteful government programs
Those wily libs!
May 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Whoops… let’s try that again…
“Why are Republicans so opposed to talking to heads of state?”
That’s exactly why we need a Democrat in office again, who will do radical and dangerous things like meet with communists, and support wasteful government programs
Those wily libs!
May 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Chileno: “GM, I know what McCain said. For the sake of brevity I didn’t bother clarifying in my first comment that nobody thinks McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. Duh. Obama’s audiences are too educated for that.”
Right, I forgot that it was the uneducated righties that keep mischaracterizing McCain’s statement in those right wing blogs such as Daily Koss and MyDD etc. You bet!
Chileno you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
There’s a TV show called “The Mole” where on contestant tries to sabotage the others. McCain doesn’t realize it but he’s got a Mole problem. A day after he gave his “I have a Dream” speech (highlighted by “Victory in vietnam, sorry Iraq” by Jan 2013 - no details) with a great economy, good schools, first rate medical careand , for all we know, two Playboy bunnies for every man a two Chippendale Dancers for every woman G.W. Bush goes to Tel Aviv and calls Obama the new Neville Chamberlin. Now, not satisfied, with joining himself to Shrub’s hip - and making Obama’s day, McCain increases his confusion by showing he doesn’t kinow how Iran is governed (Guess he is in trouble when Joe Lieberman isn’t around to differentiate Shiit from Sunni or shit from shinola). And now the asinine claim that Barack is
“Naive” because he fails to “recognize” that Iran is more dangerous than the old Soviet Union! Guess I missed all those ICBMs in the Islamic Republic!
Christmas has come early for Obama. Wonder who his Mole in the GOP cam is?
May 20th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“I wish Reagan’s father had pulled out.”
I always look forward to Randy’s creative comments. I might mention, so does Gorbachev and Qaddafi and ……you get the idea.
It’s not too late for you guys to pull out, btw, and support a winning ticket, Clinton/Obama.
Why am I trying to help here?
May 20th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
To avoid a November abortion.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Why are Republicans so opposed to talking to heads of state?
Hmm let’s see. I run a miserable third-world tyranny. I want some domestic and international cred…
I know! I’ll just deliver an aggressive, unhinged harangue to the General Assembly (or to Christiane Amanpour, if she’s around) After I make enough threats, President Obama will pose for a picture with me!
May 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Kentucky is over. How is Obama going to explain that he’s the best candidate when Hillary Clinton has beaten him by something like 1/2 million popular votes in key states over the past couple of weeks? I guess he’ll change the topic. Oh, wait. He’s on tv right now claiming the majority of pledged delegates–not counting contested states.
Don’t vote for a candidate whose campaign slogan ends in a preposition. We don’t need change if it means changing proper English.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“We don’t need change if it means changing proper English.”
Amen to that! Because “Change in which we can believe!” is exactly the way we say it in English. As Winston Churchill once said, “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”
Oh, and here’s one especially for the Woodster:
“A Southerner stopped a stranger on the Harvard campus and asked, “Could you please tell me where the library is at?” The stranger responded, “Educated people never end their sentences with a preposition.” The overly polite Southerner then apologetically repeated himself: “Could you please tell me where the library is at, you jerk?”"
May 21st, 2008 at 5:18 am
I might mention, so does Gorbachev and Qaddafi and ……you get the idea.
Gee, you forgot Hitler. Twit.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:38 am
I love the way wingnuts flitter and flutter from talking point to contradictory talking point in an attempt to soothe their morbid fear of Obama.
One day, Obama’s “dangerous” because he’s so scarey popular.
The next, he’s a threat because he isn’t popular enough to put Hillbillary out of her misery.
One day, Obama’s a shameless elitist who belittles “real” people.
The next, he’s an ignorant moron who doesn’t know enough to be president.
One day, Obama’s a spineless demagogue who will say anything to win a vote.
The next, he’s a commited, though secret, Muslim with a devious master plan to make the Woody’s of the world at long last learn basic mathematics, in Arabic while drinking the blood of Jewish infants.
Among the many salutary effects of the Obamanation juggernaut is the full flowering of dumbfuckery in the wingnutosphere.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:25 am
4-Block World: Using 2004 Standards
May 21st, 2008 at 6:48 am
>As Winston Churchill once said, “This
>is the sort of English up with which I
>will not put.â€
I think he was just drunk. he should have said “…wherewithup I will not put.”
May 21st, 2008 at 7:28 am
A child’s negative reaction upon the father bringing a bedtime storybook about Australia from downstairs: “Daddy, why’d you bring that book about down under up for?
At least one former member of McCain’s team has integrity.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am
“Gee, you forgot Hitler.”
No Randy. Not Hitler silly.
I forgot Fidel, Communists in Grenada, Marxists in Nicaragua, Soviet dictator in E Germany, Soviet dictator in Checkoslovakia, Marxist dictator in…..
need I go on?
I didn’t really forget Randy. The freedom’s list was just too long. Acknowledge Reagan, or tear down some walls for yourself. Geeze, the audacity!
May 21st, 2008 at 8:51 am
Fidel remained in power. Daniel Ortega is in power in Nicaragua.
Grenada? Get a grip http://tinyurl.com/3lweyh
You left out support for death squads in El Salvador that murdered priests, selling weapons to a terrorist state, selling weapons to Saddam Hussein, supporting the brutal occupation of East Timor by Indonesia, drug dealing by the contras, supporting Noriega in Panama.
As for the fall of communism, you conveniently ignore movements like Solidarity and individuals like Vaclav Havel who did far more at great personal risk than Reagan ever did.
Reagan helped as many dictators as he opposed. As long as they opposed communism, he could care less.
Remember when I said you weren’t serious. You’re still not.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:51 am
Thanks, Randy. That article tells us something.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:58 am
That’s one man’s opinion and I’m sure you know the old saying about opinions. In any event, McKinnon didn’t aid any dictators.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Just one man’s opinion??? Isn’t every opinion just that of one person?
Aid dictators? Like refusing to oppose Saddam Hussein?
May 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
@GM
>>>Right, I forgot that it was the uneducated righties that keep mischaracterizing McCain’s statement in those right wing blogs such as Daily Koss and MyDD etc. You bet!
Fine, some people run with it. Thanks, again, for pointing out the obvious: Obama distills/highlights/headlines McCain’s pro-War message and some nuts, perhaps too many nuts, take it out of context.
No thanks, though, for your red herring. To bring you back, once again, to your original point, which is as follows:
Obama is fearmongering at a level equatable to that of McBush.
As I’ve already clearly shown, you’re flat out wrong on that. McCain, with the help of Bush, is actively distorting Obama’s message. There’s a huge difference, and frankly it is disingenuous of you to try to equate the two.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
Aid dictators? Like refusing to oppose Saddam Hussein?
That was Reagan. Other McCain lobbyists have attempted to burnish the image of people like Mobutu and the Burmese Junta. That’s what this whole post was about.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Randy, FDR helped Stalin. Maybe the times and needs were different then, so that doesn’t automatically mean that FDR liked commies (even though they were in his State Dept.)
Rather than looking at whatever Reagan or whoever did whenever, think about how they would deal with situations today. No leader is perfect, but Reagan obtained the respect of other countries and didn’t mess around for a year with hostages in Iran.
I’d take Reagan’s foreign policies over the Obama/Carter policies.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The Financial Times prints the Iranian leader’s name as
Ahmadi-nejad. In other words, Ahmed Nejad. Remember the Christmas play about Ahmed?
Blogger Daniel Davies made a good point some time back that how the media handles a foreign leader’s name tells us something about his standing with us. TV news goes out of its way to pronounce Sarkozy’s name close to right (we’ll never get the French r) sar.ko.ZEE. Not the same care for Ahmadi-nejad.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I’d take Reagan’s foreign policies over the Obama/Carter policies.
Which shows how thoroughly witless you are.
FDR allied along with Canada, the UK, the French exile government, Brazil and all the countries listed here.
Reagan acted unilaterally with regard to Saddam. As usual your analogy doesn’t hold water.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
And just for the record, the Bush administration apparently thinks it’s fine for Chinese intelligence officials to participate in interrogations in Gitmo.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Better than Bill Clinton who gave the Chinese our missile guidance technology for accurately aiming ICBMs at us.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 am
Shorter Woody: Two wrongs do make a right.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Shorter Randy: I’m a hypocrite.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
In your dreams, peckerwood.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Chily old top, you state: “Obama is fearmongering at a level equatable to that of McBush.
As I’ve already clearly shown, you’re flat out wrong on that. McCain, with the help of Bush, is actively distorting Obama’s message. There’s a huge difference, and frankly it is disingenuous of you to try to equate the two.
Uhhh, no chilly, my thesis was that what McCain was doing was NOT gutter politics or fear mongering.
“As I’ve already clearly shown…” I don’t know what to say to the utter foolishness of this claim except perhaps Bwahahahaha! Again Chilly, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
McCain is in gutter politics. He aligned his message Bush’s obscene distortion of Obama’s version of diplomacy as “appeasement”. It’s far lower than what Obama’s doing, which is simply to remind people of McCain’s whole-hearted support for a U.S. presence in Iraq, and doing so by recalling McCain’s own words spoken in a candid moment.
Anyway, dude, I understand your “thesis” just fine. You’re equating Obama’s and McCain’s strategies: you’re saying both are above the belt. I rejected that thesis, and up to now you haven’t been able to sufficiently counter that rejection. Yes, you said that liberal blogs like Daily Kos are distorting McCain’s remarks, but that’s got nothing to do with Obama. Meanwhile McCain is aligning his message to the commander-in-chief’s. If Rove wasn’t behind that one, it sure smacks of it.