Browsed by
Tag: John McCain

The First Presidential Debate

The First Presidential Debate

Comments 1 comment

I had signed up to rate the debates at “Rate the Debates,” because it was billed as getting a jump on the pundits. I was hoping that this would serve as a pulsepoint. I’m disappointed that the survey was more about the moderator’s performance than the substance of the debate itself.

Overall, I thought both candidates did fairly well. They both got angry, but held their tempers. They both looked a little silly smiling when they were hearing digs aimed at them.

Neither one of them adequately addressed the economic issues, but I guess that’s really for a later debate. As a matter of national security, they covered the basics. I thought some of the discussion about foreign relations was the most interesting part of the debate.

I would have liked to have seen them both actually debate a little more rather than just responding – but Lehrer tried his best to encourage that (and he was a good and fair moderator). It’s a matter of the format, I think.

Oh – and I can’t wait to hear from that old battleaxe Dr. Kissinger. He must be pleased that he’s still so important despite his many crimes.

Here are a few things that made me halt: “wait, hold on a second there, stop the train.”

McCain

1) He kept saying that Barack Obama “just didn’t understand” – didn’t understand how to deal with foreign leaders, didn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy, etc. etc. – all with a slightly pitying look and a sorrowful shake of the head. I didn’t count how many times he said or implied it, but this mannerism ran through the whole debate. I can understand how he would try to use the “elder statesman” role to his advantage, but I don’t think this worked. I kept wondering when he was going to complain about those damn kids next door. It didn’t make him look wise, just old. It was pretty clear that Obama did understand – better than McCain in many cases – and I think he was on weak ground with that attempt.

2) He called for the consolidation of regulatory agencies. What, like Homeland Security? Or so that conflicts of interest can become involved in a power monopoly? It’s not enough that the agencies are riddled already?

3) The invocation of a spending freeze was not wise, and the way he described the way he would handle cuts sounded a bit disastrous to me.

4) He called for 45 nuclear power plants. Not good.

5) He noted – twice – that he was not elected “Miss Congeniality” of the Senate. That’s not a good image for him to invoke. Ick.

6) He seemed to think that if we had trained interrogators, they wouldn’t torture. The documentation that I’ve seen about the history of torture techniques during this administration doesn’t suggest to me that training was the only, or the most important, issue.

7) I think he really tried too hard to pull on the heartstrings. It came off as hammy and undermined what I think really might be his authentic feelings on some issues.

Obama

1) He didn’t mention nuclear power in the first set of remarks on energy, but then later he did add “and yes, nuclear power.” Sigh. I just don’t like the dangers of nuclear energy and its byproducts.

2) I thought he made good points about our standing in the world, but I’m not sure about the way he characterized 20th-century vs. 21st-century governments. He could have reframed some of the discourse about why America isn’t trusted within a more robust terminology.

3) I thought that he let too many things “go.” I could see where he needed to focus on the things of core importance, but he was almost too reasonable. I wanted to see some of his fire and air, and he was in water and earth mode.

4) I thought he overemphasized the word “investment.” I agree with the ideas, but it’s not a word anyone wants to hear right now.

5) That whole thing with the bracelet was too much. “I have a bracelet too, and THIS mother said…” I know I’m jaded, but I don’t want to see two grown men talking about military deaths in terms of bracelets. Really, give me a break. I expected that sort of ooze-fest from McCain, but Obama disappointed me on that one.

The whole thing was fascinating, but I hope they both polish up for the next go-round.

The Vicki Strategy?

The Vicki Strategy?

Comments 8 comments

I don’t know – and I truly don’t care – whether or not John McCain had a “romantic involvement” with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Honestly, I keep expecting him to start referring to her as “that woman.” Give me a break. Can’t we break this obsession with our politicians’ sex lives?

John and Cindy McCain been married for a long time and been through a lot together, but I can’t help thinking an unkind thing. Cindy McCain reminds me of Cruella DeVille. Blond tresses notwithstanding, Cindy McCain’s bionic eyes on that manni-kin body give me the serious creepy crawlies.

People had problems with Hillary as First Lady. They ridiculed John Kerry’s wife Teresa. I haven’t really seen any serious coverage of Cindy McCain yet. All I can tell you is that in a very superficial way (I admit it), I’m not liking what I see when I picture her as First Lady. Given what I know about McCain, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if he was straying.

Take it further. Vicki Iseman looks a bit like a younger version of Cindy McCain, no? Has no-one noticed the resemblance between these two women? Or are they just too hesitant to say it?


Vicky Iseman, John McCain, Cindy McCain, Cruella deVille

It’s easy to think that John McCain simply fits a certain stereotype of the power-drunk man looking to update to the current model, right?

But somehow that’s not what went through my mind.

What if that assumption is what drives this whole thing? It’s as though Vicki were made to order.

What if she were?

Given the following anecdote about about McCain met (second wife) Cindy, it would be a simple matter to draw up a battle plan that included a kind of mata-hari woman who could “push his buttons.” How do you win friends and influence people in politics? Power, money or charisma – preferably all three, right?

Cindy and John met in 1979 at a military reception in Honolulu. John: “She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident. I monopolized her attention the entire time, taking care to prevent anyone else from intruding on our conversation. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening’s end, I was in love.”

If you were highly motivated to influence McCain, wouldn’t it make sense to identify McCain’s likes and dislikes, his attractions and repulsions? With all his rhetoric against lobbying, wouldn’t it be silly not to notice that it might take more than money to move this bear?

Everything I’ve heard about this story is focussed on the wrong end of it. I think it’s a story about using sexual attraction as one more lobbying strategy. Ask any doctor about the hunks and chicks they send to push the new drugs out onto the market.

For election coverage, I would prefer to see more criticism of McCain’s actual record. There’s plenty there to examine.

And please, I beg of you please, please stop using that photo of McCain hugging Bush. Stop using it. I found the whole thing disturbing enough at the time.

McCain Sells His Soul

McCain Sells His Soul

Comments 10 comments

As cynical as I have become about politics, this one surprises even me. I never would have thought that John McCain would vote this way on torture. Disgusting.

Arianna Huffington: John McCain Sells His Soul to the Right: Backs Off on Torture Ban – Politics on The Huffington Post

Has there ever been a more repugnant example of political pandering than John McCain’s decision to vote against a bill banning waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment?

“When I was imprisoned, I took heart from the fact that I knew my North Vietnamese captors would never be treated like I was treated by them. There are much better and more effective ways to get information. You torture someone long enough, he’ll tell you whatever he thinks you want to know.” And there was this pithy and powerful summation of why torture should never be an option: “It’s not about who they are, it’s about who we are.”

Well, Senator McCain, this vote demonstrates very clearly who you are. How will you sleep at night?

Brief thoughts on Presidential Candidates

Brief thoughts on Presidential Candidates

Comments 6 comments

I haven’t been posting on the Presidential race, mostly because the discourse is depressing. The change/experience framing is trite, and I’m already more than sick of it. But here are some random thoughts about the presidential candidates across the board.

Democrats

I would support Dennis Kucinich, but I honestly don’t think he has a chance.

So far, I’ve been supporting John Edwards. I was disappointed to see John Kerry slap him in the face with his support of Barack Obama. I like his message a lot, and I think he would be a great president. He would do more for everyone from the middle class on down than any other candidate. Big interests dislike him – a very good sign.

My next choice is Hillary Clinton. I think she has the savvy that is required these days in politics, and I think that we might salvage our international reputation if she were president. My only real reservation about her is a big one, though. She is still very much tied up with some of the very corporate interests that have taken control of our government. Fundamentally, I have a trust issue with her.

Barack Obama is very moving, a charismatic and very smart kind of guy. But I think there isn’t enough substance there. I don’t like the fact that he misrepresents himself as a grass roots guy. He’s not, and all you have to do is look at his academic credentials. I am often blown away by this speeches, but I want to know what his foreign policies would be. I did not like what he has said about Iran. His race is not an issue for me one way or another – my idealism in that respect was – finally – destroyed by Condi Rice. It really doesn’t matter. Charisma is not enough, and in some ways it can be blinding. His followers are too… following, if you know what I mean.

I was sad to see Bill Richardson go. I thought that he had a lot to contribute to the debate, whether or not he was successful in his bid.

Republicans

Obviously, I don’t support any Republicans. I’m pretty liberal. I do have a couple of thoughts about them, however.

Ron Paul. I have a lot of respect for him, and I agree with some of his positions, especially on the war and on civil liberties. But like most libertarians, he won’t take a stand on people who do not have the bootstraps to pull upon. Help them? Kill them? Let natural selection take its course?

John McCain isn’t going to go for torture. That you can count on. He’s looking pretty old, so if he successful, you’ll want to look very very carefully at his choice for VP. It could be a setup. He has been successful in the past on getting some bipartisan initiatives passed. Of the candidates on the right, he would be the only one who might be able to revive the central Republican agendas. They don’t like it, though.

I have to say that although I think he would be a disaster as President, I like Mike Huckabee. I just like him. It would be funny to have a President named “Huckabee” – it might make us more humble. I’d like to have him over for dinner. He comes across as more authentic than the other candidates. He would look good in black and white, like the old news programs. Of course, there are obvious church-state and gender issues with Huckabee’s positions, and I don’t think we could afford for him to be directing foreign policies. Obviously he appeals to the pseudo-religious right, but he’s a bit more Christian (I think) than many of them are – maybe too much so for them to swallow. The neocons aren’t pleased, for sure.

Speaking of neo-cons, Fred Thompson, wow. I’m glad it looks like he can’t compete.

Giuliani – did you _hear_ him in that Republican debate? Can you say “fascist”? I give Giuliani credit for standing up and saying the right things when 9/11 happened. He was the leader there. On the other hand, he really should have known that the towers would be targeted again, and he turned around and cut support for the first responders that he had praised. I won’t go into the possible issues regarding his sex life, relationship with family. Nobody really remembers the Jimmy Hoffa thing either, and I think it’s funny that he likes to dress up as a woman. But I will say that his cleanup of New York City had a cost: when the psychiatric hospitals were emptied, and then the homeless shelters were closed in the middle of winter – that was the measure of his regard for human life.

Smooth salesman Mitt Romney… what can I say? He scares me, in a primal way that defies explanation, so I won’t go there. New England knows Mitt. Even among politicians, I believe that he’s a consummate liar. He hasn’t switched his positions so much as people think – he has only expressed positions as they will help him at the time. How did you _expect_ him to win the position of governor in Massachusetts?

News that Matters to Me

News that Matters to Me

Comments 0 Comment

The roundup of the news that catches my eye and matters to me is focused around a national theme, as it often is.

We are too easily misled and kept in the dark. When we see a bit of light, it is too easy to cover our eyes. We have been progressively desensitized, but we’re not the first.

I am beginning to have some hope again.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.” — Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945

Americans are starting to be unable to avoid recognitions of some of the consequences… at last. Don’t forget the lessons of the “Good Germans”.

Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept silent, but America’s recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington Post.

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, took place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he “never laid hands on anyone” in his many interrogations, adding, “I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.

In related news, Gen. Michael V. Hayden has ordered an investigation of its own Inspector General John L. Helgerson – for Helgerson’s own investigations into the CIA’s involvement in torture. Got that? Read it again.

This warrants an immediate and aggressive investigation by Congress into a clear case of attempting to suppress dedicated public servants because they may believe the United States should abide by international law and basic human morality. … This story fits the pattern of absolutely everything this Administration does: fail, commit crimes, try to cover up those failures and crimes, and when honest and competent people make honest and competent efforts to keep our government honest and competent, punish them.

On the domestic front lines, it looks as though the NSA approached Qwest before 9/11 to enlist telecommunications firms in surveillance without court oversight. Don’t give me any more fluff about the “post-911 world,” if you please.

Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio’s lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans’ phone records. In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest’s refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution.

From Gary Wood at Hear My Thunder, here’s a commentary worth reading on our 4th largest city, Prison USA:

Based on 2005 population figures for both our prisons and U.S. cities the prison population would rank as the 4th largest city behind New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago while beating Houston out by over 200,000 people.

Check out Amy Branham’s article on how we went shopping while our constitution burned, too.

Be sure to take a look at Jon Stewart’s little video on America’s favorite private mercenary force (Killing People since 1906 … for Money), care of Crooks and Liars.

One nice thing in the news, at least. Hey, Al Gore! You rock! Congrats on the Nobel Peace Prize!

But McCain is such a wanker, making this nasty and absurd statement:

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain said the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, announced today, should have gone to someone else other than former Vice President Al Gore. “I would have liked to see that prize go to the Buddhist monks who are suffering and dying in Burma,” McCain said after a speech this morning in Davenport.

I sure hope not, but nice try for the heartstrings. There would have been a long line of suffering and dying people who would have been in line before them.

I think Gore’s contribution was to work for the recognition of a worldwide problem that we need to solve together in peace. We can all be warring with one another until there is nothing left to fight for, or we can work together on a larger project, one that is truly a global problem.

…McCain, an Arizona senator, said he hoped Gore would now support nuclear power and a cap and trade proposal made by McCain and Sen. Joseph Lieberman to mandate that all sections of the U.S. economy reduce greenhouse gasses through a market-based system of trading emissions.

Trading guilt – like indulgences?

At this point, the second Lieberman’s name is on it, I have serious reservations. I would be more optimistic about nuclear power in the US if I felt sure about the government’s true ability or inclination to safeguard the public…

The statement from White House spokeman Tony Fratto on the honor to Gore was hilarious (or maybe it’s just me). Not only is Bush fully aware that Gore should have been President… but don’t forget that Bush has vigorously opposed mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas throughout his “reign,” appointed industry cronies to important posts, and even interfered with scientific reports. Bush may be the least environmentally-friendly President in history, and he is no friend to Gore (obviously). So, what can he say?

First there is the humorous suggestion that the President is “happy”:

“Of course he’s happy for (former) vice-president Gore and happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also shared the peace prize.”

But it gets better!

Obviously, it’s an important recognition and we’re sure the vice president is thrilled.

It almost gushes – we’re SURE the vice president is THRILLED. Mrriooww- hissss.

Oh brother.

I want to see, and I think it’s really time for us all to see, a serious unmoderated round-table debate between John Edwards, Dennis Kuchinich, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and maybe even Ron Paul. I’m getting tired of the bull already. I don’t want a performance – I want to see a serious discussion where they have to deal with each other.

What I’ve seen of the Republican debates doesn’t make me want to see any more, but they should do this too.

And – hey – why not have a series of two at a time? Not the stupid dogshows they do later, but real debates. Unmoderated debates, but under standard rules of debate. Sigh. I’ll keep hoping, although everything I see works against it ever happening.

MoveOn Controversy? Gimmee a Break

MoveOn Controversy? Gimmee a Break

Comments 0 Comment

I hear “betray us” whenever they say General Petraeus’ name too, but yeah, it was a bit cheap to play on the name. Making a stink about the childishness of of that would be fair, but the comments I’m hearing are really over the top. And with all of the concentration on the word play, the actual point of the ad was lost.

Then there’s all this babbling about how the Democrats are “afraid” of irritating the members of Moveon.org. Makes ’em sound like pansies, doesn’t it? Actually, one area where the Democrats have showed spine is in risking a lot of their voter base to try to compromise realistically in areas where there is significant disagreement and anger. Maybe they should be a little more afraid of irritating them sometimes….

But then consider everything the Republicans have to do in order not to “irritate” segments of their own voter base, especially the right-wing “Christian” voters. I doubt most imperialist neo-cons really care about abortion or homosexuality, but they throw out statements and bits of legislation. It keeps us fighting one another instead of realizing how we’re all getting robbed and losing any credibility in the world.

The bigger stink should be made about the brazen self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the ones pointing the finger, considering their own honored traditions in the history of smear (Ann Richards, Max Cleland, John Kerry, John McCain, etc etc).

Keith Olbermann makes a couple of very stunning points here about maintaining a tilted and anti-democratic playing field, and the politicizing of the military. To me, that’s the larger context and it isn’t being discussed nearly enough. If this story about MoveOn.org keeps on playing, then here are better “talking points” for the discussion.

Olbermann to Bush: “Your Hypocrisy Is So Vast” by Keith Olbermann, MSNBC “Countdown,” Thursday 20 September 2007

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj6s5M68Raw[/youtube]

A reaction to Thursday’s press conference: the president was the one who interjected Gen. Petraeus into the political dialogue in the first place.

So the President, behaving a little bit more than usual, like we would all interrupt him while he was watching his favorite cartoons on the DVR, stepped before the press conference microphone and after side-stepping most of the substantive issues like the Israeli raid on Syria, in condescending and infuriating fashion, produced a big political finish that indicates, certainly, that if it wasn’t already – the annual Republican witch-hunting season is underway.

“I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. Military.”

“And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad.

“And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like Moveon.org or more afraid of irritating them, than they are of irritating the United States military.”

“That was a sorry deal.”

First off, it’s “Democrat-ic” party.

You keep pretending you’re not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect.

Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry?

But most importantly, making that the last question?

So that there was no chance at a follow-up?

So nobody could point out, as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight, that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place!

Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman and now you’re complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone?

Eleven months ago the President’s own party, the Republican National Committee, introduced this very different kind of advertisement, just nineteen days before the mid-term elections.

Bin Laden.

Al-Zawahiri’s rumored quote of six years ago about having bought “suitcase bombs.”

All set against a ticking clock, and finally a blinding explosion and the dire announcement:

“These are the stakes – vote, November 7th.”

That one was ok, Mr. Bush?

Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you?

The Republican Hamstringing of Captain Max Cleland and lying about Lieutenant John Kerry met with your approval?

But a shot at General Petraeus, about whom you conveniently ignore it, was you who reduced him from four-star hero to a political hack, merits this pissy juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television?

Your hypocrisy is so vast that if we could somehow use it to fill the ranks in Iraq you could realize your dream and keep us fighting there until the year 3000.

The line between the military and the civilian government is not to be crossed.

When Douglas MacArthur attempted to make policy for the United States in Korea half a century ago, President Truman moved quickly to fire him, even though Truman knew it meant his own political suicide, and the deification of a General who history suggests had begun to lose his mind.

When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief General, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition which he did when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864, nearly defeating our greatest president.

Even when the conduit flowed the other way and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures, after four years of fearful servitude, rose up against McCarthy and said “enough” and buried him.

The list is not endless but it is instructive.

Air Force General LeMay – who broke with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis and was retired.

Army General Edwin Anderson Walker – who started passing out John Birch Society leaflets to his soldiers.

Marine General Smedley Butler – who revealed to Congress the makings of a plot to remove FDR as President and for merely being approached by the plotters, was phased out of the military hierarchy.

These careers were ended because the line between the military and the civilian is not to be crossed!

Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man.

And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career.

The upshot is and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement he betrayed himself more than he did us.

But there has been in his actions a sort of reflexive courage, some twisted vision of duty at a time of crisis. That the man doesn’t understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops, is not so much his fault as it is your good, exploitable, fortune.

But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of ‘the planted last question’ at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond.

That is not only un-American but it is dictatorial.

And in pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.

You did it again today and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed.

It is a line thankfully only the first of a series that makes the military political, and the political, military.

It is a line which history shows is always the first one crossed when a democratic government in some other country has started down the long, slippery, suicidal slope towards a Military Junta.

Get back behind that line, Mr. Bush, before some of your supporters mistake your dangerous transgression, for a call to further politicize our military.