McCain on The View:
McCain was later pressed on the increasingly derisive tone of the campaign, and his new television commercial that carries the widely discredited claim Obama supported comprehensive sex education of kindergarteners as an Illinois state senator.
McCain defended the ad's claims, as well as those of a Web ad that said Obam's "Lipstick on a Pig" were directed at Palin. He added that if Obama had agreed to a series of townhalls he'd proposed, the tone of the campaign might have been more amicable.
"If we had done what I asked Senator Obama to do, I don't think you'd see the same tenor of this campaign," he said. "Why don't you ask Obama the next time he's on this show why won't he be in town meetings with me?"
Yeah- if that was the way it worked Obama's response should be "Ok, you play me in a game of pickup basketball every day, or else I'm going to spend the entire campaign lying about your record."
Friday, September 12, 2008
Women Say No to Palin
Forwarded to me by my aunt (a retired small-town librarian, for anyone sniffing around for a whiff of elitism):
FORWARD TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters:
We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce -- on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate --that has a real possibility of becoming fact.
Like us, as American women, you probably share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.
We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and altogether devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably benefited from.
First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women.
It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters.
We want to disagree, publicly.
We invite you to reply here:
womensaynopalin@gmail.com
FORWARD TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters:
We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce -- on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate --that has a real possibility of becoming fact.
Like us, as American women, you probably share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.
We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and altogether devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably benefited from.
First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women.
It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters.
We want to disagree, publicly.
We invite you to reply here:
womensaynopalin@gmail.com
Department of Unconvincing Excuses
Lisa Schiffren from NRO defends Palin's ignorance of the Bush Doctrine:
Andy and Yuval both explain well that the Bush Doctrine is a multi-faceted policy, not clearly defined, and only intermittently adhered to in any of its particulars. David Gergen — of all people — on CNN pointed out that the phrase is, for the most part, inside DC/foreign policy establishment jargon. It is not used widely in the media, even in more serious discussions of whichever aspect is under scrutiny. So a well read state-level political leader, who followed the Bush Administration foreign policy in, say, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, or on ABC news (God help us), would not necessarily have a deep field of references. It was the clearest "gotcha" moment of the interview.
Well... after watching the interview, I asked my fiance (a highly intelligent grad student in clinical psychology, but by no means part of the DC Foreign Policy Establishment or even a state-level political leader) if she was familiar with the Bush Doctrine, and she said something along the lines of "Isn't that the policy that allows us to attack other countries if we think they might attack us."
This question was sprung on her while she was in the shower, as opposed to during an interview for which she'd been preparing for several days while being intensively coached in foreign policy by Joe Lieberman (who, come to think of it, might be considered part of the DC Foreign Policy Establishment).
Granted, this is all anecdotal, and maybe she's been reading back issues of Foreign Affairs while I'm sleeping or something... but I think it's more likely that knowledge of the Bush Doctrine is a standard piece of information among people who have been paying any sort of attention to American foreign policy over the past few years.
Andy and Yuval both explain well that the Bush Doctrine is a multi-faceted policy, not clearly defined, and only intermittently adhered to in any of its particulars. David Gergen — of all people — on CNN pointed out that the phrase is, for the most part, inside DC/foreign policy establishment jargon. It is not used widely in the media, even in more serious discussions of whichever aspect is under scrutiny. So a well read state-level political leader, who followed the Bush Administration foreign policy in, say, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, or on ABC news (God help us), would not necessarily have a deep field of references. It was the clearest "gotcha" moment of the interview.
Well... after watching the interview, I asked my fiance (a highly intelligent grad student in clinical psychology, but by no means part of the DC Foreign Policy Establishment or even a state-level political leader) if she was familiar with the Bush Doctrine, and she said something along the lines of "Isn't that the policy that allows us to attack other countries if we think they might attack us."
This question was sprung on her while she was in the shower, as opposed to during an interview for which she'd been preparing for several days while being intensively coached in foreign policy by Joe Lieberman (who, come to think of it, might be considered part of the DC Foreign Policy Establishment).
Granted, this is all anecdotal, and maybe she's been reading back issues of Foreign Affairs while I'm sleeping or something... but I think it's more likely that knowledge of the Bush Doctrine is a standard piece of information among people who have been paying any sort of attention to American foreign policy over the past few years.
More on Palin's Interview
James Fallows of the Atlantic, one of the smartest and fairest writers in the game, was dismayed by Palin's inability to recognize or discuss the Bush doctrine:
Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals. People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate.
I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (gasp) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
...
A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:
1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"
That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.We don't know about #2 for Palin yet -- she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.
Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals. People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate.
I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (gasp) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
...
A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:
1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"
That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.We don't know about #2 for Palin yet -- she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.
Getting off the Bus
The AP appears to be exiting the Straight Talk Express today with an article criticizing McCain and Palin for their unprecedented misrepresentations and outright lies:
The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week
The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week
Habeas Corpus
In the face of Palin's comment that Obama was worried "that we wouldn't read terrorists their rights," the candidate gives a stirring defense of our one of our most important rights as Americans:
Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"
The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."
"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."
Obama turned back to Palin's comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.
"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
He finished with a dismissive comment about his opponents.
"These people."
(Via Andrew Sullivan)
Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"
The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."
"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."
Obama turned back to Palin's comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.
"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
He finished with a dismissive comment about his opponents.
"These people."
(Via Andrew Sullivan)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Service
I was able to watch part of McCain's section of tonight's forum on national service and almost all of Obama's. I was very pleased to see McCain backing off the notion raised at the GOP convention that only military service "counts" and that other kinds of community activism was a target for derision.
In college in 2000 I was the McCain campus coordinator (oddly before taking the fall semester off to work for the Gore campaign). One of the things that drew me to McCain at that time was his call for all Americans to get involved in something bigger than their own self-interest. McCain's call was one of the factors that lead me to join Teach for America after September 11th, and I was genuinely hurt by the message coming out of the convention sneering at "soft" kinds of service.
Hopefully, whatever comes out of the campaign, both candidates can maintain the accord they had tonight on the importance of Americans of all ages to believe and involve themselves in causes bigger than their own self interest.
In college in 2000 I was the McCain campus coordinator (oddly before taking the fall semester off to work for the Gore campaign). One of the things that drew me to McCain at that time was his call for all Americans to get involved in something bigger than their own self-interest. McCain's call was one of the factors that lead me to join Teach for America after September 11th, and I was genuinely hurt by the message coming out of the convention sneering at "soft" kinds of service.
Hopefully, whatever comes out of the campaign, both candidates can maintain the accord they had tonight on the importance of Americans of all ages to believe and involve themselves in causes bigger than their own self interest.
Palin: Iraq planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks
From the Washington Post:
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
So the question is- does Palin: a.) not know that the troops are going to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, b.) not know that it wasn't the Iraqis who attacked us on September 11th, or c.) not remember that even the Bush administration doesn't try to peddle that nonsense any longer?
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
So the question is- does Palin: a.) not know that the troops are going to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, b.) not know that it wasn't the Iraqis who attacked us on September 11th, or c.) not remember that even the Bush administration doesn't try to peddle that nonsense any longer?
Lobbyists
McCain apparently spent his 70th birthday on a yacht in Montenegro with his lobbyist-campaign manager Rick Davis, Anne Hathaway and Raffaelo Follieri- Anne Hathaway's ex and current convicted felon.
Birthday with Anne Hathaway? And Obama's the celeb?
Birthday with Anne Hathaway? And Obama's the celeb?
Deer in the Headlights
Charlie Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
Palin: (5 seconds uncomfortable silence) In what respect Charlie?
Gibson: (baffled at her ignorance) Wha? I mean, what do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview?
Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002
Palin: (Sputtering about eliminating Islamic terrorists for a bit)
Gibson: Um, the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is the right to anticipatory self-defense.
(Currently working on getting an embedded youtube clip of this, for the moment it's available at TPM)
Palin: (5 seconds uncomfortable silence) In what respect Charlie?
Gibson: (baffled at her ignorance) Wha? I mean, what do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview?
Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002
Palin: (Sputtering about eliminating Islamic terrorists for a bit)
Gibson: Um, the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is the right to anticipatory self-defense.
(Currently working on getting an embedded youtube clip of this, for the moment it's available at TPM)
Ready to start another war on day 1
ABC News reports:
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Gov. Sarah Palin took a hard-line approach on national security and said that war with Russia may be necessary if that nation invades another country.
I'm glad that Palin's experience commanding the Alaska national guard gives her the experience and wisdom to contravene Kennan, Dulles, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan, all of whom realized that going to war with a nuclear armed Russia is absolutely crazy.
Maybe she wants her recently deployed son to risk his life so that the people of Moldova can be ruled by a homegrown dictator instead of by one in Moscow, but I'd be awfully surprised if voters see it her way.
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Gov. Sarah Palin took a hard-line approach on national security and said that war with Russia may be necessary if that nation invades another country.
I'm glad that Palin's experience commanding the Alaska national guard gives her the experience and wisdom to contravene Kennan, Dulles, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan, all of whom realized that going to war with a nuclear armed Russia is absolutely crazy.
Maybe she wants her recently deployed son to risk his life so that the people of Moldova can be ruled by a homegrown dictator instead of by one in Moscow, but I'd be awfully surprised if voters see it her way.
Elitism
Matt Yglesias takes on conservative pundit Robert Kagan, who states that it's elitist to expect leaders to know things about foreign policy, and believes that Palin's experiences make her just as qualified to make foreign policy and national security decisions. Matt's response:
Kagan, like most neoconservatives, thinks that in-depth knowledge of foreign countries and the politics and culture of foreign societies isn’t helpful in thinking about foreign policy questions. Similarly, they believe that in-depth knowledge of theoretical and empirical work in the field of international relations isn’t helpful. Indeed, they think that this kind of in-depth knowledge is actually harmful. They prefer the judgment of people who have little knowledge of the outside world but do possess a degree of gut-level nationalism.
Since most Americans do possess a degree of gut-level nationalism and don’t possess much understanding of the world beyond our borders, it’s difficult politically to mount an argument against Kagan-style celebration of ignorance. But at the same time, the fact that a substantial swathe of the conservative policy elite thinks this way explains an enormous
Kagan, like most neoconservatives, thinks that in-depth knowledge of foreign countries and the politics and culture of foreign societies isn’t helpful in thinking about foreign policy questions. Similarly, they believe that in-depth knowledge of theoretical and empirical work in the field of international relations isn’t helpful. Indeed, they think that this kind of in-depth knowledge is actually harmful. They prefer the judgment of people who have little knowledge of the outside world but do possess a degree of gut-level nationalism.
Since most Americans do possess a degree of gut-level nationalism and don’t possess much understanding of the world beyond our borders, it’s difficult politically to mount an argument against Kagan-style celebration of ignorance. But at the same time, the fact that a substantial swathe of the conservative policy elite thinks this way explains an enormous
Palin's Earmarks
Among the various earmarks that Sarah Palin requested, one stands out as almost ridiculous as the bridge to nowhere- a request made for fiscal year 2009 for over $10 million federal dollars to upgrade airports serving tiny communities in Alaska, including airports in Akiachak (population 585), Akutan (population 713), and Chalkyitsik (population 83).
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Responding to McUmbrage
At a campaign rally today, Obama said:
"Enough," Obama declared. "I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift Boat politics. Enough is enough.""We've got an energy crisis," Obama said at a campaign event where he had planned to focus entirely on education policy. "We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on, veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about."You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate. It's not the Republican candidate. It's you, the American people. Because then we go another year, or another four years or another eight years without addressing the issues that matter to you."
...
"Our job is to just drum home, day after day, the facts. I still have faith that the truth will out in the end," Obama said. "We are going to hammer away at the fact that the stakes in this election are too high."Asking the assembled press corps to take notice, he said the McCain campaign is using the media all too well."The other side, they're not good at governing, but they're good at running campaigns. They're very good at understanding what piques the media's interest," Obama said. "This whole thing about lipstick, nobody actually believes that these folks are offended."Everybody knows it's cynical. Everybody knows it's insincere," Obama said. "The media knows it."
The media is doing its viewers and the country an enormous disservice by focusing on the ridiculous charges emanating daily out of the McCain camp. Frankly I'm not sure what the best course for Obama is- I think there's a lot to be said for keeping to the high road. Any descent into slinging mud back would probably backfire because it's so contrary to Obama's brand. I think there's a point to be made (and probably some good ads to be made) showing all of the ridiculous claims by the McCain camp and how their campaign shows that they're totally unserious about governing.
"Enough," Obama declared. "I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift Boat politics. Enough is enough.""We've got an energy crisis," Obama said at a campaign event where he had planned to focus entirely on education policy. "We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on, veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about."You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate. It's not the Republican candidate. It's you, the American people. Because then we go another year, or another four years or another eight years without addressing the issues that matter to you."
...
"Our job is to just drum home, day after day, the facts. I still have faith that the truth will out in the end," Obama said. "We are going to hammer away at the fact that the stakes in this election are too high."Asking the assembled press corps to take notice, he said the McCain campaign is using the media all too well."The other side, they're not good at governing, but they're good at running campaigns. They're very good at understanding what piques the media's interest," Obama said. "This whole thing about lipstick, nobody actually believes that these folks are offended."Everybody knows it's cynical. Everybody knows it's insincere," Obama said. "The media knows it."
The media is doing its viewers and the country an enormous disservice by focusing on the ridiculous charges emanating daily out of the McCain camp. Frankly I'm not sure what the best course for Obama is- I think there's a lot to be said for keeping to the high road. Any descent into slinging mud back would probably backfire because it's so contrary to Obama's brand. I think there's a point to be made (and probably some good ads to be made) showing all of the ridiculous claims by the McCain camp and how their campaign shows that they're totally unserious about governing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)