All Politicians Pissed Me Off on Wednesday
Disclosure to those who haven’t read my previous posts: I support Obama.
To date, this was a sad day in the 2008 Presidential campaign. (Alas, there are many more days in which both parties can lower the bar.)
Why do I feel this way? Here is my read:
Republicans/McCain camp: Shame on them for going after Johnson. The holier-than-thou attitude they present in expressing their indignation at Johnson is ridiculous when the McCain campaign is populated with lobbyists such as Campaign Manager Davis and Senior Advisor Black.
Democrat/Obama camp: Shame on them for taking McCain’s Today Show comments out of context. If his remarks ended with “not too important,” than the brouhaha would be justified. At worst, his comment was poorly worded. If he had substituted “as” for “too,” the dustup would be moot.
To those Obama supporters who think me unsupportive of Barack, I ask you the following. Weren’t you pissed off when Obama’s comments in San Francisco were taken out of context? I was beside myself when I saw the aftermath of Obama’s poorly worded (but substantively true) comments hung around his neck like a boat anchor. (Sadly, McCain resurrected these comments in his visit to PA.)
For two candidates and campaigns that tout their desire to change Washington politics, today was an exercise in the same old same old. No matter how much we pull for our candidates to prevail, do we really want to condone their cheap shots?
If we Americans long for a different politics, shouldn’t we have the courage, regardless of party/candidate affiliation, to call crap as crap?
They didn't take anything out of context. The comment stands on its own. His lame attempt to qualify his remark didn't matter, in my view. I see what you're getting at, but I simply disagree.
June 11, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree scientific. If this was the first time McCain said something so insensitive, it would be different. But McCain is totally wrong on this issue. His POW creds can only stretch so far, and I say that as the wife of a Viet Nam vet who has seen the toll of PTSD, which I believe McCain must confront. His support of this war is his albatross and he needs to confront it.
June 11, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree with you scientific. That comment was not taken out of context - it was indicative of McCain's support of empire-building in the Mid-East. This isn't the first time he's said it, either.
June 12, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. We seem to collectively be sinking to the lowest level. The "norm" in politics.
He said this...No, really? Well, I heard.... Guess what else?...Yea, I heard that, too....Did you hear about....Kind of, something like that...I got an e-mail, did you get it?...Not that one, but...
We all need to rise above the BS. Starting with the candidates. But Washington works the way it does for a reason, changing it (on either side) will take time. Likely longer than even two terms as President.
June 11, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that the pith of what McCain said is in keeping with his policies, i.e. an open-ended committment. Sure it was badly stated, but it's not an inaccurate representation because in fact, McCain has no plan beyond "winning." And even then, according to him, we can then stay there for a hundred years. Because it will be just like Germany, Korea and Japan.*
Obama's statements about bitter and guns, while perhaps as badly worded as McCain's was in his, an accurate representation of a political statement (though not a policy) which he had stated before in a much better way on say, Charlie Rose (can't find the clip, but it's worth watching). And it's a point others have observed, that some people can vote against their economic best interests and instead choose to vote based on "wedge" issues, like guns, God and gays. That's why we had Reagan Democrats, for example or the people who voted for Bush II based on gay marriage, despite the fact that economically he wasn't going to help them at all.
And as Josh I think right points out, the question was about the timing of getting out, and McCain didn't have an answer for this and in fact, it is immaterial to him. He thinks we should either leave when there aren't any casualties, or we can't leave, because there are and we can't 'lose' by just leaving.
*note, after the war? our soldiers weren't being shot and killed in Japan, Germany or even S.Korea on a regular basis. So this is a bullshyte analogy. I wish someone, anyone would call him out on this crap.
June 11, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I understood him to say was we can't leave if there ARE casualties because that would be "losing". On the other hand, if the casualties stop it's not too important when, or even if, we leave. Hell, if they ain't shootin, why not stay forever?
I wish someone would ask him directly about the proposal for 58 permanent bases that Iraqi officials seem so pissed about. Does he want to establish them or not?
June 11, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that McCain's entire statement on the Today Show is consistent with his misguided Iraq policy. (BTW, my argument is that even if we "won" the war, it should never have been fought; the ends don't justify the means.)
Here is what I heard McCain saying: "Keeping troops alive is my top priority. A living soldier is better than a dead one." Who would disagree with that? One should feel free to disagree with the rest of his statement.
However, in latching on to the "not too important" phrase alone, don't you think that Kerry was not just condemning war policy, but also trying to imnply that McCain didn't care about the soldiers (which IMHO is an overreach)? Didn't Kerry's statement have tinges of an ad hominen attack on McCain (a typical political tactic that I absolutely detest)?
June 12, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying that McCain likes his soldiers alive rather than dead is a pretty minimal defense. Who could argue with that?
I like drivers to be sober rather than drunk, but then I don't serve liquor to them on the highway.
McCain wants soldiers to stop getting killed, but this pesky war just keeps getting in the way. He is a simplistic dope who passively just wants the US military to stay alive. The comparison to Korea and Japan is ridiculous -- the war was OVER when they stopped getting shot at. There is no way for this war to ever be over as long as we are there. It isn't his words in this interview that inflame me; it is his intentions and his actions. His words just happened to explain both of those things.
Remember, this is a guy who is so out of it, he called a shopping trip with a flak jacket, 100 soldiers around him and a gunship hovering overhead; an example of the "peace" we are bringing to those lucky Iraqis. Sheeeeeesh!
June 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in agreement with you, except for the ad hominems against McCain. I don't think he's a simplistic dope. He is simply wrong about his Iraq policy.
Notice that you responded to the entirety of McCain's Today Show statement. What irks me is when politicians make hay out of one phrase or sentence.
June 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean did on Meet the Press in late April. At about 4:00 in they show the DNC's 100 years in Iraq ad, and Russert asks whether they're taking McCain's quote out of context. Dean interrupts, concluding "what Senator McCain is saying doesn't make any sense".
It's a strong, effective, and scathingly powerful rebuke. Obama made the right call keeping Dean in charge of the DNC.
June 12, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you look again at Kerry's criticisms, you'll see that they focus on the policy implications of McCain's comments and how they reinforce the questionable priorities reflected in McCain's Iraq position. (If he had said "as" instead of "too," which would have expressed the same priorities, that wouldn't have invalidated the bulk of the criticism.)
To suggest that the response to McCain's comments today, which was grounded in policy disputes (at least as far as the Obama camp comments were concerned; can't speak for the pundits) and the response to Obama's "bitter" comments, which was an attack on Obama's character ("he's an elitist!") and ironically attempted to apply the same wedge issues he was analyzing, doesn't seeming quite appropriate.
Not saying your analysis is completely unreasonable. But I'll add my name to those who respectfully disagree.
June 11, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, getting late. Meant "to suggest the responses were equivalent" didn't seem fair to me, but I didn't close out the thought. Also, "doesn't seem quite appropriate."
June 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the nature of the responses are different (though Kerry accusing McCain of being "out of touch" borders on ad hominem attack).
Would you at least agree that both responses somewhat overdramatized the quotes to which they referred? Couldn't Kerry have made the differences-in-policy argument in another way? I would even argue that the substantive aspect of Kerry's statement (which we both agree is very important) was subsumed by the sensation surrounding the quote itself.
Ultimately, I feel the responses to both McCain's and Obama's statements attempted to overtag the quotes (by "overtag," I mean drawing bigger conclusions than warranted). This is the type of typical politics that irks me.
June 12, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're really mad about the media framing of the Obama campaign's response to the "doesn't really matter remark." That's not the campaign's fault. That's just the MSM reducing substance to banality which is what they do. We view the campaign through an MSM filter that screens out the substance and only allows through the shit. There's no way to stop them from doing that by speaking more carefully or telling them not to. They think that's their job, in these degenerate days. They really think that's what reporting is.
So I think you have kind of fallen into the trap of accepting the McCain campaign's attempt to shift responsiblity for the media's reduction of a substantive critique to bitch-slap banalities onto Obama. Which is even more wrong. McCain has been, and will be, the beneficiary of the MSM filter the MSM crap-only filter as often as Obama.
June 12, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do get mad at the MSM and they will sensationalize statements to get ratings and prop up their candidates. Certainly, some of this happened with Not-Too-Important-gate. I chuckled and groaned when Morning Joe tried to morph this into the Dems playing up the age issue.
But there is more to my indignation than the MSM. (I will use John Kerry's response to make my point.) It bothers me that Kerry responded to a sentiment that McCain didn't express in his statement. Kerry morphed "not too important" into a statement implying that McCain does not care about the troops and their families. As wrong as he is on his Iraq policy, McCain surely cares about the troops (hence his statement about casualty reduction is the top priority).
Here's hoping for more subsrantive campaigning by the candidates and their surrogates and fewer (to borrow a basketball phrase) ticky-tack fouls.
June 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, in my opinion, there are few issues more substantive to this whole debate than the issue of whether we should stay or go in Iraq. I think that it matters deeply to our military and our veterans. I think it matters deeply to our tax policy and our pocketbooks. I think it matters greatly when you look at our standing in the world community. I think it's important for the Iraqi people, who are considering us occupiers and longing for "Freedom" from our "tyrannical occupation". I think it's important for our energy policy, our foreign policy, our economic policy ... it's a hugely important issue and on this important issue, McCain is wrong. And it is important.
June 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No
June 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one took McCain's comment out of context. What he said was massively insensitive and incredibly out of touch. He clearly doesn't understand how dangerous and counterproductive a long-term U.S. presence in the region would be. For him to try to compare Iraq with Japan or Germany is just absolutely ridiculous. McCain should be forced out of government for his stupidity.
He doesn't deserve a break on this. It was an idiotic, careless, dangerously clueless statement.
June 12, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with all of your policy statements. We should pull out of Iraq. The comparisons to Japan and Germany don't make sense.
However, I don't believe McCain to be idiotic or clueless. He is just wrong, and that's enough for me to support Obama.
Finally, at the very least, Democrats are making more out of McCain's "not too important" statement than actually exists within the statement.
June 12, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we have a right to make political hay out of whatever we can. Both sides do. I don't think our hearts were in this one, though. With Clinton on the sidelines, we don't really have a credible voice to confront McCain on the occupation. As I've said elsewhere, Obama is smart to steer clear of the war lover. War talk energizes McCain. The occupation is going to be our worst minutes of the first debate. Many of us have not seen McCain perform in one on one exchanges on the war. He is going to be very convincing.
June 12, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if Obama continues to emphasize that he was against the war from the beginning and make the relevent judgment vs. experience arguments, he will hold up very well against McCain.
June 12, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will kick McCain's clueless old man ass.
June 12, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? Did she die? Does losing the nomination mean that she's no longer allowed to speak up?
The majority of Americans believe that the invasion was a mistake and that we should get out. With Clinton on the sidelines, we at last have a credible voice to confront McCain on the occupation. What would Hillary have said? That she voted to invade and supported the surge and warned against setting a timetable for withdrawal but that she'd had a change of heart on all points? I'd hardly call that a credible position.
June 12, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the thing is, I really believe that withdrawing isn't important to McCain. He wants permanent bases there. He wants permanent force and presence there. So, I don't think it's really out of context when he says withdrawing isn't the issue.
It just pisses me off that to him everything is Korea or WWII. Dude, this so isn't the same thing.
June 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding Iraq policy, I'm not sure what McCain ultimately wants to do, but I agree with you that his espoused policy is wrong.
I think that within the context of his entire response, McCain was ranking the importance of casualties and troop presence, saying that the former is far more important then the latter. It is his clumsy choice of words that is getting him in trouble right now and I am not plesaed with the way the Dems are handling it. Both sides are playing politics as usual (Reps more than Dems) and I wish they would stop.
June 12, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that's precisely why his statement should be viewed as cluelessly naive. There will never be a time when an American occupying force will be anything but a target in Iraq. McCain's statement shows that he has no concept of the nature of the conflict in Iraq, the origins of the Sunni/Shia divide, or the vast problems that our invasion have caused in the region. He's living in Disneyland. It's just more of George W. Bush's fantasy-based foreign policy.
June 12, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on. Why have we stopped using the word "quagmire"?
June 12, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also completely hypocritical of McCain to make hay with the "bitter" comment in one sentence, and complain about gotcha reporting with quotations taken out of context the next:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/mccain-the-raging-hypocrite.php
June 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the link! I saw McCain make these remarks last night and thought the exact same thing.
Looking at how trailing candidates behave is fascinating. McCain is starting to dabble in the mud he promised not to fling during the general election campaign. Hopefully, Obama will resist the urge.
June 12, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that many people who have a relative in Iraq would consider McCain's comments to be misinterpreted; after all, unlike Dubya his words actually formed a complete sentence. Why should anyone waste their time trying to figure out a way to interpret them to make them seem more reasonable. His words said what he truly believes; that we should stay there for 100 years, and then he just WISHES that people would just stop blowing our guys up! As though his decision to leave them as targets was not half of the reason they are dying!
He said what he believes, and he is wrong. Why not use those words to show people the truth?
June 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this second comment. I hope you see my response to your earlier first statement.
June 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry you were frustrated, Pangaea. But I disagree with you on this one. I agree with Andrew Sullivan, who said that "That's not too important" was EXACTLY what McCain meant, and it's because McCain supports a semi-permanent military presence in Iraq, just like in South Korea or Germany. I do not believe that occupying Iraq is a good idea. I think that's very important. And so, I find McCain's statement to be totally repugnant.
June 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for taking the time to read through my post and all the comments and for your three comments to my post. My response here will incorporate all of your comments.
I don't think that we agree on whether or not what McCain said was "EXACTLY what McCain meant." I see a statement taken out of context while you (and others) do not.
I'm fine with this difference because I believe that we agree on the bigger picture:
- Iraq is a significant and substantive issue in this election;
- McCain's Iraq policy is wrong.
June 12, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add, my outrage was the fact he said that and the troops serving heard it. He clearly demoralized our soldiers and that was unforgivable.
June 12, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink