I fear that McCain will take the same high road approach to politics as Bush did. I have a huge amount of respect for Bush, as any regular reader knows, and believe that he was the right man at the right time to lead this country….and he did it well. Not perfect, but no President has ever been perfect. That goes for Lincoln and Washington also.
But when he took the high road with political appointments, meaning he didn’t can the Clinton appointed ones, he set himself up for the The Shadow Party
Now we have a very honest debate on the decisions and character of a Democrat opponent and McCain is going to take the high road instead of highlighting it:
An aide to John McCain was suspended from the campaign today for blasting out an inflammatory video that raises questions about Barack Obama’s patriotism.
Soren Dayton, who works in McCain’s political department, sent out the YouTube link of “Is Obama Wright?” on twitter at 12:31 today with the tag, “Good video on Obama and Wright.” It has since been taken down.
Twitter is an online device that allows users to send out short messages and links en masse through computers or PDAs.
McCain and his campaign have repeatedly said that they would stay away from personal attacks on Obama, but the temptation has increased as Wright’s words have dominated the race in recent days.
Last week, they included an op-ed that hammered Wright and Obama in their morning clip package emailed to reporters. The same day, a campaign aide they regretted doing so.
Informed that Dayton was circulating the video, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said he had been suspended and “reprimanded by campaign leadership.”
“We have been very clear on the type of campaign we intend to run and this staffer acted in violation of our policy,” she said.
We will not get this kind of conduct in return folks. The uber left will have their fangs out for McCain for the next 7+ months and no high road will be taken by either Obama or Hillary, so to reprimand a campaign worker for sending out a video (the video is on the front page of Flopping Aces right now), via twitter, that is a honest look at the man Obama calls his mentor and also highlights previous Obama statements on this mentor, is just wrong. It should not be considered an offense worthy of suspension. He didn’t make the video, all he did was tell everyone its an interesting look.
If McCain takes this approach during the general he will get creamed.
On the Wright topic VDH had a good analysis of the problems Obama faces:
Whence Obama’s problems? It is not that he believes in the venom of Rev. Wright, or that when he says something stupid like a “typical white person” he means to imply a stereotyped distasteful race. He doesn’t.
The problem is instead the environment that he heretofore has navigated in — prep school, the Ivy League, the regional identity politics of Chicago, or Illinois liberalism — is hardly representative of his own country. So what he can say among sympathizers and friends will not be excused or contextualized by average others who don’t know him and won’t give him the latitude he is accustomed to and apparently has counted on.
He and Michelle have no doubt rebuked sympathetic elite white audiences, and by both their presence and purse have let it be known that they consider the Rev. Wright’s rhetoric tolerable, but they have no idea that the vast majority of Americans that they heretofore have rarely come into contact with are a far different audience, and find the Obamas both more privileged than themselves and undeserving of any more of a pass than any others.
When he praises Rev. Wright he sounds like he is from Mars — but hasn’t a clue that he does. And so like a deer in the headlights Obama keeps waiting for a black precinct captain or a Columbia professor to come to the rescue and explain — ever more clueless that even if they did, it wouldn’t matter a bit.
The typical white person comment that VDH is referring to in the first paragraph is from a interview Obama did today in which he describes his grandmother as the “typical white person.” (h/t Powerline)
Just imagine for a moment John McCain referring to a black person in the same way.
He would be done….toast…..Kaput.
Will he get the same treatment or will people just shrug their shoulders and say…”well, he’s half black, so he gets a pass?”
Meanwhile David Freddoso comments on the video the aide sent out:
The real issue is not Wright, but Obama’s weasel-like behavior concerning what he supposedly knew and did not know about his church and his spiritual mentor. Confronted with the controversy, he’s tried to have it both ways. He’s heard “controversial” things in church, but not those controversial things. Perhaps he slept through a few sermons, skipped church here or there…
He’s acting like…well, like a typical politician. Like someone who would send his economic advisor to reassure Canadian officials that all his protectionist rhetoric is just a ruse to fool voters in Ohio. Like someone who would (with permission, of course) lift a few lines from a friend’s speech and present them as his own.
Despite the awful music and poor editorial choices (I get the point that Wright is a racist demagogue without having to be reminded of Public Enemy’s music (thanks to a reader for correcting me here) or the infamous 1968 Olympic incident), the video at least captures Obama’s evasions and juxtaposes them with Wright’s fiery antipathy toward America.
When it comes down to it, this controversy has taught us all that Obama is nothing but a typical politician. Now that wouldn’t be so bad if he had presented himself this way for the last few years, but instead we have gotten the message that he is a “new” kind of politician who hasn’t been indoctrinated into the old world, that he is the candidate of “change”….
And nothing could be further from the truth.
See author page
McCain is right to take “the high” road. Obviously this is just a strategy, not some moral imperative. What he did to Romney with the time-tables distortions was definitely low-road but highly effective.
Obama has just scared millions of voters with the Wright revelations. He went from golden boy to Black Panther in a week among the swing contingent, not the hardcore libs and identity voters, but fair-weather friends. I said before the Wright controversy erupted that when someone’s appeal is based on little information in can be reversed in a flash when new information is added. McCain is a known quantity so he is hard to dislodge with new information, and he has this weird, quirky appeal to those who like him that is also somewhat cultish in nature, just not as enthusiastic as either Ron Paul’s or Obama’s. It’s smart for him to avoid any “racist”, “bigot”, etc . charges that he would unavoidably incur by opening his uncontrollable mouth. He ought to stay unscripted but on safe subjects. If he is judged healthy enough by November and doesn’t do anything completely crazy, he is in.
I think the high road is the only road McCain should follow. There just is no other right choice.
I don’t agree. He cannot be afraid to attack Obama on something which is obviously a noteworthy. Ignoring it in the hopes of not being thought of as racist is foolhardy and in the meantime he loses the election.
If your opponent has a flaw you better expose it, because you can be sure that they will do the same to him. Nothing underhanded or anything like that, but when you need to attack you better go on the offensive.
He seems to be letting the MSM do his work for him on this issue which will quickly fade away…..and the fact that he wants to play nice guy worries me.
Somebody famous should have said, when your enemy is doing stupid stuff, be quiet, don’t confuse the rubes.
Being the nice guy gets you only so far. If there is a valid point to be made why not make it?
Nice guy’s finish last, usually.
Regardless of who the DemocRat nominee is, I think the final race is McCain’s to lose.
Which I think he will inevitably do.
Countless Republicans have lost because they let DemocRats get away with things unchecked/unanswered. This time will be no different. McCain’s effort to appeal to
everyone will appeal to no one and he’ll lose.
“Nice guy’s finish last, usually.”
I seem to remember a rebuttal of this, oh yes: “He who is least among you shall be first” (Luke 9:48).
McCain will win on the strength of his character, not on his ability to play dirty. To be sure, Obama is self-destructing because of his weakness of character.
Who said anything about playing dirty? I’m saying when there is a valid point to be made about your opponent…MAKE IT!
McCain is an inconsistent candidate to begin with. He is wrong on illegal immigration, Global Warming, McCain-Feingold. His stance on taxes is pretty good now, but hard to understand in the past. He appeals to two categories of people: those who are illogical themselves and like his illogical stuff or for nice but insufficient reasons (“he is a war hero”), and those who think that however flawed he is so much better than the two Marxists who will lose the war on terror, destroy the economy, and sell the US out to China, etc. There are also many who straddle the two categories, that is they like his illogical stuff but can’t go for someone way too radical, or of the wrong gender or race.
I can’t think of a single person who he can explain anything about Obama or Hillary that’s not in the news already. The Wright stuff works because it’s very visual and scares people. More and more of that (meaning Rezko, the Weather guys, other crazed preachers) needs to appear. McCain remaining “the adult in the race” works against Obama while he is marginalized. With Hillary, news revelations just don’t stick as evidenced by the Hsu case being forgotten immediately, so the only chance to add to her own negatives is to debate her on the issues. With Obama who is obviously the likely nominee given the delegate math and the “there’ll be riots if the superdelegates go against the will of the people” anxiety, talking about issues is fine but it has zero effect other than to reaffirm that McCain isn’t yet totally senile.
To sum it all up, try to think of one person you know who will be convinced to vote for McCain by any logical argument he can make.
The timing of this thing will make it difficult for McCain to raise the issue again in the general election. Think about it – Clinton’s camp has made much of it, the blogs have done their berserker thing, and now McCain’s campaign has been caught trying to push the issue after he, himself, said that he would not. If he comes out with it during the general campaign, three things happen:
1) He gives the impression that he’s playing the race card. (Like it or not, that’s how it will play in many homes…think “why is he bringing this up again?”
2) He gives the impression that his word–in this case, taking the high road–doesn’t mean much.
3) Like it or not, trying to give this issue wings will open him to questions about Hagee, Parsley, his trip to Bob Jones University and all the rest.
Now, we’re going to see more of this, to be sure–the 527s will undoubtedly try to keep it alive–but the more forced its invocation, the worse it will appear to be.
Thats the liberal view, and those who think like that are already voting for Obama no matter what news comes out on the man. We’re not after those voters.
Thats what I’m railing about. If he continues to play the nice guy on these kinds of things the Dem’s, who will not play nice, will slaughter him.
Bring it on, doesn’t compare in the least. Being a 20 year mentor and 20 year member of the the church, getting married by the man, kids baptized by the man, doesn’t even come close to having someone endorse him, or a trip to a university…no matter how hard you wish this to be true.
But as I quoted David above, the even bigger issue to bring up is that he is NOT the outsider coming in….rather just a typical politician:
Try nothing, they will keep this alive, thankfully.
Curt, first she is a he. Soren is a friend of mine. Second, Soren is a nice guy and not some black-hearted political fiend. Third, if he really wanted to pass the video around Twitter wasn’t the most efficient. Soren shut down his weblog because he was now working for McCain. Posted the video there would have been more effective than Twitter. He simply linked to the video so his Twitter friends could see it. By Team McCain’s logic sending the link to friends by e-mail would amount to the same offense. Is the campaign going to start watching every piece of e-mail sent from the campaign?
Ah, yes, the high road:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364
That link has nothing to do with the topic. But seeing as how Wes brought it up I addressed it in comment number 11.
Sean, sorry, will fix the he/she stuff. I thought the twitter thing was a bit over the top also. As you said a more productive way of getting the video out would have been a email or blogburst.
The irony never ceases to amaze me. As much as liberal Democrats accuse conservative Republicans with being short-sighted with their labels of “good” and “evil,” making everything black and white per se, their actual conduct belies their words. The 60’s radical cry of “Never trust anyone over 30,” has morphed today into “You can’t trust anything a conservative says,” “like a typical white person” etc. It’s kind of this very “1984” way of condemning our very thought process. Whereas, when conservatives apply the label of “evil,” they tend to base it on conduct; for instance to leaders who have carried on the fine Stalinist tradition of treating your populace as merely so much fodder to fulfill your own ambitions, like Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, and the late Saddam Hussein.
In an ethical sense we should applaud McCain for carrying on this moral standard, and vowing to take the high-road. On the other hand, he must realize that today’s politics require a degree of down-and-dirty finding of your opponent’s flaws and (entirely factual) skeletons in their closet. It’s akin to a nation simultaneously maintaining both a diplomatic corps and an intelligence capability. So, while McCain takes the high-road and tries to be a Reagan-esque orator (we can dream can’t we?); we can hope he’ll get someone like Karl Rove aboard to take care of the other side of the coin, and if not, then it falls to us in the blogosphere to let the truth be known.
Speaking of the Great Communicator, I came across an interesting story by Michael Reagan about his father over on http://www.frontpagemagazine.com, in which he highlights some of Obama’s thinking on how the Reagan coalition was based on anger over affirmative action and welfare: “He charged that ‘anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime… talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.’
Poppycock! These are not only outright falsehoods, but echoes of what Obama learned at the feet of Jeremiah Wright and now preaches as his own beliefs. He learned his lessons well.”
Welcome to the twilight zone folks, Obama is being heralded for his fine speech on the state of race relations in America as if he’s Abraham Lincoln himself, and at the same time he’s painting the architect of the end of the Cold War as a closet racist. At what point does this guy spin so fast that even the MSM can’t hang on for the ride anymore?
Well, thankfully, once again it looks like public opinion might be moving ahead of the MSM’s storyline. Granted, I don’t put much stock in polls, but post the Wright Affair, Hillary is surging ahead vis-à-vis Obama. With the Pennsylvania primary pending, a smattering of other small states left, and the public opinion conscious super-delegates still up for grabs, we can hope that moderate voices will defeat the radicals in the amongst the democrats. But, then again, I consider that mostly an insurance policy against a left-wing racist presidency. The best news from the polls though is that between the Wright Affair, and the “democratic civil war” in full swing, McCain is now ahead of both Hillary and Barrack in the national polls.
This is to say that the likes of Curt, Mike, and Wordsmith are making themselves heard amongst the electorate. Great work guys, keep it up, only seven and a half months till the general election!
Why should John McCain worry about taking the heat for the political low road. he can be fully comfident that FoxNews will do it for him. Just as George W. Bush knew he could keep his hands clean in 2000 because Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would spread the rumours all around the South Carolina primary for him. Republicans always make sure someone else does their dirty work for them.
Or do you pretend that Republicans are pristine?
PS, you’re a buffoon.
P.S. Don’t look out your windows, there are black helicopters out there…
I can see how McCain’s campaign operatives needs to be sensitive in how they conduct themselves. At the moment, it would be better if they let this Wright story stand without having their finger prints on it.
But what concerns me is that McCain will permit the Democrats to define what is acceptable campaign speech by him and what is not. Once you do that, you have lost. Your opponents will find that EVERYTHING you say or do is offensive if you let them.
But what do I know? I’m just a “typical white person.”
“He charged that ‘anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime (…) Poppycock! These are not only outright falsehoods, but echoes of what Obama learned at the feet of Jeremiah Wright and now preaches as his own beliefs. He learned his lessons well.”
I’m old enough to remember (and quite well) how often Reagan told the ‘welfare queen’ story on the stump. It was a standard piece of his rhetorical repertoire. I don’t think you can look us in the eye and say that he wasn’t trying to evoke a particular response from his audience. He, too, was an excellent orator, and it was quite clear that he wanted his audience angry about welfare.
—-
Over a period of about five years, Reagan told the story of the “Chicago welfare queen” who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and collected benefits for “four nonexisting deceased husbands,” bilking the government out of “over $150,000.” The real welfare recipient to whom Reagan referred was actually convicted for using two different aliases to collect $8,000. Reagan continued to use his version of the story even after the press pointed out the actual facts of the case to him.
—-
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-index.html
Geraldine Ferrero got fired for commenting on facts. BHO gets away with comments like “typical white person”. John McCain should ask BHO how he defines a “typical white person”, and keep him on the defensive.
BTW BHO talks about his grandmother, but not a word regarding the influence of his radical muslim father and muslim paternal grandmother. I have thought all along that anybody that disagrees with BHO will be labeled racist.
“On the other hand, he must realize that today’s politics require a degree of down-and-dirty finding of your opponent’s flaws and (entirely factual) skeletons in their closet. (…) we can hope he’ll get someone like Karl Rove aboard to take care of the other side of the coin…”
Oh, so the smear campaign around McCain’s “illegitimate black child” was one of those “entirely factual” things? Juxtaposing Obama and Malcolm X in a video is “entirely factual?”
The “other side of the coin” in politics is smear, rumor and innuendo, not “entirely factual skeletons.”
“then it falls to us in the blogosphere to let the truth be known.”
Give me a break. You mean the same blogosphere that, depending on the links, names Obama a Muslim, says that Vince Foster was murdered, claims that McCain had a sexual affair with Isemann, and (to this day) claims that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Look at your own writing. The simple fact is that many conservatives WERE (and are) angry about the state of welfare and affirmative action in this country. It’s also a fact that Reagan built his support, in part, by playing upon that resentment. (What other purpose could the repetition of the ‘welfare queen’ story have? Was it but an innocuous tale of government run amok? Don’t insult our intelligence.) That does not make us racists, yet you wrote “he’s painting the architect of the end of the Cold War as a closet racist.” He did no such thing; in fact, his speech drew parallels between black resentment and white resentment, showing them in the same light. I note that you didn’t bother to quote the sentences immediately preceding this statement. Allow me:
“Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation.”
Can you REALLY argue that point? I don’t think so. Let me toss in another quote you didn’t bother to include:
“Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze (…) And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.”
He is obviously addressing the underlying anger and resentment in American society, both white and black, confirming that these resentments are based in legitimate concerns, and explicitly dismissing the notion that white resentment is automatically ‘racist.’ Yet, you pull one sentence out of a lengthy speech and claim that he’s calling Ronald Reagan a racist?
Way to “let the truth be known”…
Buckeye wrote, “BTW BHO talks about his grandmother, but not a word regarding the influence of his radical muslim father and muslim paternal grandmother. I have thought all along that anybody that disagrees with BHO will be labeled racist.”
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Machiavelli wrote: “So, while McCain takes the high-road and tries to be a Reagan-esque orator (we can dream can’t we?); we can hope he’ll get someone like Karl Rove aboard to take care of the other side of the coin, and if not, then it falls to us in the blogosphere to let the truth be known.”
So, what do you think about the State Department workers snooping in Obama’s passport file? Is that part of “the other side of the coin” for Clinton or McCain, the blogosphere working to “let the truth be known,” Obama sleeper agents at work, or just a mundane abuse of authority? Come on, let’s hear some rampant speculation, folks – it works for everything else, right? Wait, I know, I know, let’s go big on this one – it’s Bush and Rice abusing their power to help McCain by elevating Obama to the nomination so that McCain can take him down more easily after blaming Clinton operatives for the privacy violation, right?
*snort*
He is playing for the Independent vote there. As for the high-road overall… the response to Obama’s last Iraq speech was filled with flat out falsehoods.
Obama has not promised to raise taxes on the middle class, he has promised to cut them. You can say you don’t believe him but you cannot factually say he has promised to raise them. McCain’s “middle class tax cut” is just a repeal of the ATM. I’ve never earned enough to pay the ATM, so that doesn’t help me. Unless you have it doesn’t help you either.
It was also stated Obama would withdraw troops regardless of the conditions on the ground. Obama has always stated the opposite, that he would thouroughly consult before drawing up a withdrawal plan. Again you can say you do not believe him or that those conditions don’t even exist yet. But the statement from the McCain campaign is untrue.
Oh please. Lets add this up, he wants to spend 150 mil on green energy, he wants to put barriers up on free trade, he wants to establish a infrastructure establishment bank that will cost 60 billion, socialized health care…65 billion. He wants more regulation on health insurers, drug companies, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage interest tax-credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned income tax credit and triple the same benefit for minimum wage workers. Add up all his plans and they cost 800 billion and rising. There is no way tax hikes on the rich will accomplish this and as it always does, the middle class will have to be the ones he looks to.
If you really believe he will accomplish all this without raising taxes on us middle class then you really are smoking the Obama peace pipe.
As far as Iraq, in his speech on the Iraq War anniversary he said that he plans to remove ALL U.S. combat divisions in 16 months. But he will leave just enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy’s (picture the fall of Vietnam…because that is what will happen when we leave like that to early) oh….and even better he plans to leave a “counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy.”
The man is high.
Doing what he proposes before the country is completely ready to take over combat operations will lead us to re-invade in the future. No doubt about that.
His ignorant plan also includes invading Pakistan…but only the borders see. Pakistan won’t get upset about that. Screw our allies!
The man is naive, an empty suit, and has no business even being in this race for the Presidency.
Curt wrote, “Doing what he proposes before the country is completely ready to take over combat operations will lead us to re-invade in the future. No doubt about that.”
By the same token, though, how long do we give them to get their act together? I’m much less concerned about the presence of US troops if they’re in an overwatch role instead of daily patrols and IED-hunting. (It also seems obvious that fewer US troops would be required for such a role.) I’ve sat here for years, waiting to see some signs that we’re actually pressuring them to step up to the plate, but progress is agonizingly slow, and we’re to the point that unit commanders are walking around with chunks of money to try to have some localized impact (because the central government can’t get it done).
It can’t be all carrot; we have to show the stick somehow, right?
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/21/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Curt
As I said, you don’t have to believe him, you just shouldn’t lie about what he has said. He has not promised to raise taxes on the middle class, he has promised to lower taxes on the middle class.
It’s perfectly fine to diagree with a candidate, but I would hope McCain would have enough faith in his own positions without distorting someone elses.
Ask Abu Laith al-Libi about the US in Pakistan.
wesmorgan1, your attempt to envelope the Democratic campaign rhetoric on Iraq into some semblance of rationality is just hilarious. Let me summarize what you and the esteemed Democratic candidates are saying: “Progress has been slow, the people are tired of hearing about Iraq, we must leave just because we must leave, they will probably sort things out to everyone’s satisfaction when we leave because they won’t have the Americans to keep order, and even if there is some ethnic cleansing or even wholesale slaughter, who cares, people are tired, it’s not like Darfur because we actually have no interest in Darfur, but you know we just staid to long in Iraq, time to go, we need the money for all the programs. Let’s never mention what Iran will do if we leave. Let’s not mention that compared to a year ago the progress has been incredible. It’s slow overall because we say so. We need to end this thing because we do and that’s final”.
Igor, I’ll be very blunt. I’ve lost almost all confidence in the current crop of leaders, including a military leadership that has become–to its detriment–progressively more politicized over the last 20 years. Now, I don’t know that Obama, Clinton or even McCain will have particularly better ideas, and I’m certainly not one of those “bring them home NOW” clowns who have no understanding of geopolitics or history, but I need something more. We’re in a different type of occupation here, with a population more fractious than any we’ve tried to manage in the past–yes, even more so than the Bosnians and Serbs in my opinion–and we’ve made a mess of it. We simply aren’t putting any visible pressure on the Iraqis to get their act together.
As far as my “attempt to envelope (sic) the Democratic campaign rhetoric” is concerned, did you even read what I wrote?
“I’m much less concerned about the presence of US troops if they’re in an overwatch role instead of daily patrols and IED-hunting. (It also seems obvious that fewer US troops would be required for such a role.)”
Where did you see “timetable” or “home now?” I’m just curious, because I certainly never said that. Personally, I think we’ll be in Iraq for at least another 10 years. However, I do NOT think we need to be doing what we’re doing today for those 10 years. We need to get to the ‘overwatch’ role I described, which is exactly what the commanders on the ground have described as their goal. The question of troop levels is tied directly to that goal; if we’re in an oversight role, we can probably reduce our troop presence by 50% or more; that’s a reasonable, worthy goal, but we MUST get the Iraqis in gear before we can get there. Otherwise, we’re writing blank checks for an inept/ineffective Iraqi government and signing them with soldiers’ lives – and I can’t support that.
First of all Wes, when you are in Orlando I owe you a beer. Right on – the Iraqi’s continue to have budget surpluses that they themselves can not agree to spend on ANYTHING and we continue to foot the bill for reconstruction a full five years after we blew everything up. Yet if you complain about this president’s policy at any level you are a surrender monkey.
frustrating…
But the real reason for the comment is that McCain has always taken the high road. It cost him in 2000 when he was knee-capped in South Carolina, but he remained above the lies. He will do so in this election as well. I believe that this time he will prevail, but even if he did not personally resort to slinging mud there will be others who will do it for him. The author of the post claims that the uber-left will have their fangs out for McCain, is the same not happening right now against all three candidates? You post those very fangs in the same discussion in the quotes from Freddoso.
There will be plenty of mud slung in every direction as it always is. I expect John McCain to rise above it either way because that is the kind of man he is. That is why he has always been my candidate.
Where did you see “timetable” or “home now?” I’m just curious, because I certainly never said that.
Wes, at this site it frequently doesn’t matter what you actually wrote; what counts is what people wish you’d written. They hang onto that like a bulldog with its favorite bone, no matter how much you bring their attention to your actual quotes.
The man will get his ass handed to him if he continues to take the high road in the general. Those fangs I was talking about have not been seen yet. A few claw marks, sure, but nothing that will come his way during the general.
Baloney. Those of us who are behind the President have complained about his policies plenty. From his decision to take the high road and not can all of Clintons political appointees, to his immigration policies, to his spending. There is a difference between valid complaints and plain ole BDS….and you, my friend, are inflicted with that virus as bad as Doc and Philly.
I don’t know who doc or philly are but I can also point to Bush policies that I have agreed with like his hated immigration stance and certainly his invasion of Afghanistan. I meant his policies in Iraq. Which of his policies have you disagreed with in Iraq?
He blew it in Iraq period. Wrong war, wrong time. It could never have made us safer and in fact the only benefactor is Iran who IS enriching uranium. But if you point out how it has not made us safer and in fact made us more unsafe you are a surrender monkey. That is my valid complaint.
Thank goodness McCain is coming to fix this mess.
CentFla said:
I wager most of us who support the liberation of Iraq have beefs with the way it was waged. Then again, that could be said of any war… all were fraught with strategic blunders.
But I disagree that it “has not made us safer and in fact made us more unsafe”. If one looks at the overall picture, we have the Global Islamic jihad movement that has been growing in strength and boldness for over two decades, until finally they came ashore on 911.
Since then, the Taliban was weakened, and tho regrouping, re’aligning, there are serious rifts with the jihad organization itself, tearing it apart at it’s very foundations. Mulla Omar, once host to al Qaeda, has distanced his Taliban from OBL and ilk. The new neo-Taliban is a mixture of AQ fighters ostracized from the old Taliban (Omar/Rahman JUI-F). Iraq has found their own formula to unite Iraqis against the jihad movement in their midst. Needless to say, jihad is not popular in Iraq, nor Pakistan. Both former enemies. Libya surrendered their nuke problem after we entered Iraq.
Internationally, the jihad movement has lost respect amongst Muslims, with more of them now no longer supporting, or in awe of OBL. The previous EIJ commander, Sayd Imam, imprisoned in England, wrote a “new rules of engagement” and chastised his successor, Zawahiri, for waging jihad in a manner that is distinctly unIslamic with his AQ association.
Thus, if you consider that AQ and the jihad movement had ample time to demonstrate to the world how ruthless they are, and managed to lose Muslim support rather than gain it, then add that if Iraq isn’t abandoned and turns into a western tolerant, intel supplier in fight the jihad, we are most certainly safer, and the ideology of jihad has been on the approval decline.
Then the final point… While we have no plans for a permanent base in Iraq, should we need a stepping stone in the event of a future blow up with Iran, or Syria, we’re parked right in the middle of them geographically… friends with the garden State of the Middle East (ala, all the fresh water rivers, and a wealth of natural resources”.
Uh… perhaps the strategy… even with the speedbumps, hiccups and missteps… ain’t so bad afterall.
Cent, you know that I don’t disagree one iota with his policies toward Iraq…we’ve had this conversation before and disagree vehemently with everything you believe in this regard.
Sorry Wesmorgan, I’d been watching the more recent threads, and only came back and saw your posts now. So, allow me to respond.
Actually, what you wrote for the before and after isn’t what Mike Reagan wrote about the Obama speech and how it pertained to his father. Unfortunately, former President Reagan was struck by Alzheimer’s, and has subsequently passed away, so is unable to respond to Obama’s tarnishing of his legacy, but I do trust his son Mike Reagan knows his father and his motives FAR better than Barrack Obama could ever hope to. The preceding quote was as follows:
“What was not expected was Barack H. Obama’s use of a litany of America’s past racist offenses to justify not only Wright’s blatant hatred of white America but his suggestion that it was a sentiment shared by most African Americans. And that is simply not true.
Nor was it true, as Obama charged, that the Reagan coalition was created out of white resentment for affirmative action or forced busing.”
For your reading pleasure I’ll also post what was written after the quote I posted for your reading pleasure:
“When he suggested that my father’s coalition was based on anger over affirmative action and welfare he was peddling a blatant falsehood as egregious in its falsity as Wright’s charge that whites created AIDS to wipe out the black population.
Everything Obama said was directed at suggesting that while Rev. Wright should not have used such inflammatory language, he was somehow justified because of America’s white racism.
Try as he might, Barack Obama cannot claim the innocence of a lamb in his long years of worshipful association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He was either fully aware of the seething racial hatred that motivated Wright, or something of a blithering idiot who can’t spot a racist hater when he spends years genuflecting at his feet.”
I think you supposition (and Obama’s) that there is some sort of seething pool of white resentment under the surface, is fundamentally flawed. I must tell you, the only time I feel any sort of “resentment” is when somebody out of the blue might decide to label me a “racist” simply because I oppose a candidate that happens to be black. Or that somehow I bear some responsibility for wrongs inflicted before I was even born, or before my ancestors arrived in the United States.
Let the politics of race, and the candidates who pander to them, be consigned to the ash heap of history. Let me close by saying, a happy Easter to all, and to all a good night.
I know that Curt, that is why I said that in 31.
My complaint is that when I complain about the war it is all BDS but when I back him on Immigration I am a leftie. Aren’t you suffering from BDS if you disagree with him on spending?
It is a sill double standard when it comes to this dang war. Disagree with the war and you are a surrender monkey.
Having said that I have always agreed that we had to follow through once Bush dragged us into this thing.
and Mata I’ll ask you to forgive me for not commenting on the tome you planted here. I have read it all before. I know that we smacked some terrorists around while we have been in Iraq. I am not ignoring any of the threat that Saddam posed or any of the accomplishments once we got there. My point is that the ultimate winner is Iran. And Iran was always and remains a much bigger threat to us that Saddam ever was or hoped to be both to us and most certainly to the Israelis. But now the Army and my Corps need to play catch up and we continue to pour billions and billions into that country and they can not even decide how to spend the massive surpluses that we have won for them. I did not suffer under the illusion that the reconstruction would pay for itself but for crying out loud pay for one fricking bridge or power plant or pick up the freaking trash put pick up a tab every now and then Iraqis!
From CentFla
Well hoooya on the “not ignoring” and “accomlishments” part, CentFla. Since you recognized Saddam’s threat, then leaving him in place was too large a security gamble.
Iran the winner? A country constantly morphing. Iran is a better candidate for internal rebellion and diplomacy than Iraq was. Ahmadinejad’s economic policies are slowing cutting into his power. The youth of Iran has been poised for a more westerized Iran for some years now, and the world has a wary eye on their nuke aspirations. What you see as benefits, I see as inevitable changes induced by a neighboring fledgling democracy. Nothing is static.
Oddly enuf, the only “drumbeats for war” on Iran come from media and liberals…. trying to convince a nation prior to elections that GWB is planning yet another invasion.
And agreed that the Iraq reconstruction efforts and oversight of cash is a problem, and not run efficiently.
MataHarley wrote: “And agreed that the Iraq reconstruction efforts and oversight of cash is a problem, and not run efficiently.”
When the cost of errors is measured in the lives of our soldiers, I would suggest that “problem” is too light a word.
CentFla wrote, “It is a sill double standard when it comes to this dang war. Disagree with the war and you are a surrender monkey.”
As I see it, this is due to the conflation of nationalism and patriotism that began after 9/11 and persists to this day. It’s the same mindset that had a woman berate me for not buying a yellow ‘support the troops’ ribbon magnet, and that had a man ask me (with disdain) why I wasn’t flying a flag. (Free clue: I wore the uniform for six years; I don’t need to show a piece of cloth to love my country, and I don’t have to prove myself to anyone.)
I’m reminded of this bit of wisdom from President Eisenhower: “Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels – men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
Many of us seem to have forgotten Eisenhower’s warning altogether, and some seem to have discarded it willfully. We are a weaker nation for it.