[digg-reddit-me]
Saturday Night Live’s excellent season opener. If only the rest of the show had been so good.
Category: Election 2008
From prosebeforehos.
The New York Times had two useful columns this morning – one by Paul Krugman explaining how McCain’s lies about Obama are even worse than Bush’s lies about Kerry or Gore:
[T]he muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.
But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern…
I’m talking…about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.
I give Krugman a lot of grief for his attacks on Obama – which resemble small-minded tantrums. But despite these frustrations with Krugman, I have always acknowledged he can be quite effective. He is simply a polemicist – and he will force the facts to fit into his pre-conceived arguments (except perhaps on economics where he is more subtle.) But when the facts happen to fit his pre-conceived arguments well – then his columns are a thing of beauty, like this past one, making a very important point.
David Brooks, conservative, writes the other column worth reading today. He attempts to explain the next steps the Republican party has to take in order to seriously address the major issues facing the nation:
If there’s a thread running through the gravest current concerns, it is that people lack a secure environment in which they can lead their lives. Wild swings in global capital and energy markets buffet family budgets. Nobody is sure the health care system will be there when they need it. National productivity gains don’t seem to alleviate economic anxiety. Inequality strains national cohesion. In many communities, social norms do not encourage academic achievement, decent values or family stability. These problems straining the social fabric aren’t directly addressed by maximizing individual freedom.
And yet locked in the old framework, the Republican Party [has a] knee-jerk response…
The irony, of course, is that, in pre-Goldwater days, conservatives were incredibly sophisticated about the value of networks, institutions and invisible social bonds. You don’t have to go back to Edmund Burke and Adam Smith (though it helps) to find conservatives who understood that people are socially embedded creatures and that government has a role (though not a dominant one) in nurturing the institutions in which they are embedded.
Brooks is describing here Barack Obama’s economic plans. Although I think he still is prejudiced enough against liberals and Democrats – assuming they will act irresponsibly if they are in power – that he cannot support Obama. And he seems to have a very positive feeling towards McCain that will lead him to hope that McCain will adopt Obama’s economic plan with a slightly more conservative tilt – despite what McCain is promising now – rather than to back the man with the plan he agrees with.
But despite this, it is because he writes columns like this that I truly look to David Brooks as an almost independent-minded thinker – even if he still remains tethered to the Republican party.
[digg-reddit-me]McCain has branded himself “The Original Maverick”. He bases this assertion of his brand on the numerous times he has gone against his party and, in another branding phrase, “Put Country First.” He and his surrogates have asked constantly – and some more independent-minded writers have also asked – “When has Obama challenged his party in a way similar to McCain?” The implication, and sometimes the outright attack, is that Obama is unable or unwilling to challenge the Democratic party in the same way McCain is willing to challenge the Republican party. A good example of this is in Rick Warren’s questions to McCain and Obama at the Saddleback forum. Warren asked McCain:
John, you know that a lot of good legislation dies because of partisan politics, and party loyalty keeps people from really getting forward on putting America’s best first. Can you give me an example of where you led against your party’s interests — oh, this is hard — (LAUGHTER) — and really, maybe against your own best interests for the good of America?
For John McCain, the answers to this question are clear – he stood against his party on the issue of torture (although he later qualified his initial opposition to torturing); he stood against his party on the issue of global warming; he challenged the Bush administration on how they were handling the Iraq war; he stood against his party on Bush’s tax cuts (although he again completely reversed positions on this issue); he stood against the base of his party on the issue of immigration; and he stood against his party on the issue of campaign finance reform. ((I have left out McCain’s Gang of Fourteen compromise which secured the appointments of Roberts and Alito – which is a rare case of McCain’s actual bipartisanship. However, it is worth noting that McCain’s bipartisanship in this instance did not actually result in a compromise for the Republicans – but in a total victory for them.))
In all of these cases, McCain stood against his party and with the Democrats. His positions were not “bi-partisan” – they were examples of a Republican acknowledging his party had the wrong position.
He went against his party’s interests because he clearly believed his party had the wrong position for America. It is also worth noting that the Republican party on all of these issues had blatantly wrong and unserious positions. Defending torture? Denying global warming despite the widespread consensus of scientists? Rick Warren’s question presumes that Republicans and Democrats are both equally wrong about the issues – and that we can get past this impasse by compromising. But that is not, in fact, the situation. He didn’t compromise and wasn’t bipartisan – he took the side of his political opponents because his party had taken an untenable position. That takes a measure of courage, but to demand Obama take stands against his party, you first have to identify similar no-brainer issues on which the Democratic party has taken a side. Obama instead is faulted for partisanship, in part, for having the same position on these issues as McCain. McCain, for coming to the same conclusions, is a maverick. What few acknowledge is that on the issues on which McCain has stood against his party, they have clearly been in the wrong.
The wedge issues of the 1990s divided the country between conservatives and liberals who competing ideologies – abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, welfare, homosexuality ((And government spending fits in here too, but not as neatly, so I will reserve this issue.)) – these were issues in which both sides had entrenched positions – and on which the country was in broad and deep disagreement. These are issues on which bipartisanship and moderation and federalism are the only solutions – because to legislate either side would leave half of the population in extremely strong disagreement. And it is worth noting that on these issues Obama has embraced bipartisanship – which he understands to mean finding goals both sides agree on related to these issues (from his speech in Denver):
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
The — the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
(APPLAUSE)
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
McCain has rejected bipartisanship on these issues in his presidential campaign – embracing a hard right position on abortion and an enforcement first approach to immigration. His examples of embracing “bipartisanship” are really just examples of him taking the Democratic position.
It’s worth noting in the days ahead how differently these two men define bipartisanship. Obama defines it as working with people you disagree with to find common goals; McCain defines it as standing with the Democrats when he can they are clearly in the right.
[digg-reddit-me]
[Image by SoggyDan licensed under Creative Commons.]
On September 16, 2005 a captain in the army wrote a letter to Senator John McCain. The captain had commanded troops in Iraq and witnessed what he described as “a wide range of abuses [of American-held prisoners] including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment.” He attempted to determine what standards governed the treatment of detainees as he reported these abuses up the chain of command – but was given no guidance. He had written to many military and political officials, informing them of what was going on and asking for guidance, despite being told by the military brass that he was committing career suicide. He wrote letters to anyone he thought might be able to help him – but no one responded.
Finally, on Finally, on September 16, 2006, this captain wrote a letter to Senator John McCain. The letter concluded:
…the most important question that this generation will answer [is] Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is “America.” [My emphasis.]
John McCain was so moved by this letter that he pushed for it to be published in the Washington Post, began drafting legislation to stop America from torturing it’s prisoners, and began publicly pushing the Bush administration on the issue in the press. On November 4, 2005, in the middle of this fight Senator John McCain issued a sober call for to reform our intelligence-gathering and
What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently not only offends our values as Americans, but undermines our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.
Senator McCain concluded his remarks by echoing the army captain:
We should do it not because we wish to coddle terrorists. We should do it not because we view them as anything but evil and terrible. We should do it, Mr. President, because we are Americans, and because we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. I have said it before but it bears repeating: The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies, and we can never, never allow our enemies to take those values away. [My emphasis.]
Responding to criticisms that he was being overly moralistic in attempting to prohibit Americans from torturing, McCain told George Stephanopoulos said:
In that million-to-one situation, then the President of the United States would authorize and then take responsibility for it
Despite heavy criticism from the right-wing, McCain had proposed what became known as the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment (and later the Detainee Treatment Act.) ((All told, the position outlined and taken by McCain to this point is a serious one – and one which I mainly agree with.)) The right-wing excoriated McCain for leaving America defenseless and the Bush administration pleaded with McCain to amend the language of his amendment, threatening to veto any measure that impinged on the president’s authority to torture people. Under great pressure, McCain limited the bill’s specific language to only cover the military, leaving out the CIA. Although the bill called for an end to all torture of prisoners by Americans, it only gave specific and binding direction to the military. Further undermining the anti-torture provisions, President Bush issued a signing statement that suggested the law violated the Constitution and that it should not be considered binding.
In 2006, the Bush administration began to push for a bill that concerned the issue of torture. McCain initially requested that the bill include the explicit protections of the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration conceded to McCain’s requests and included these protections, but undermined this passage with a provision that gave the president authority to determine what acts were consistent with and inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. Again, McCain’s stand against torture won him plaudits, but only served to authorize the president’s power to use whatever methods he personally deemed “not torture”.
In February 2008, a number of top Democrats on the Intelligence Committee became concerned that the CIA was continuing to torture prisoners despite assurances by the administration to McCain that they had stopped those practices due to McCain’s public pressure. The Democrats sought to close the loophole left by the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment, and reaching out to McCain for support, they were surprised to be rebuffed.
McCain explained his opposition to what became known as the Feinstein Amendment, saying that the current law was sufficiently clear and that:
We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures…
He continued to repeat his claim that:
I obviously don’t want to torture any prisoners.
Yet, despite reports of ongoing torture, he refused to back a law with teeth that would actually prevent torture. His first two attempts had been considered noble failures by human rights activists who worked with Senator McCain. They admired him for standing up to the Bush administration and calling on America to be better – and even if he hadn’t actually accomplished what he had set out to do. Now – with a Democratic Congress ready to push the issue and actually pass an enforceable law ending official American torture, McCain balked. He even suggested the president veto the bill if it was passed. Such was the moral authority he had built up on the issue that his standing against the amendment effectively quashed it.
What does it say about a man’s character that he hears the call of injustice and composes a powerful defense of American values and becomes the public face of opposition to torture – and then he accepts a compromise that gives him only a symbolic victory? And then, given another chance to put an end to this practice he has condemned in no uncertain terms, he again mounts a public defense and accepts a symbolic victory that reinforces the position he has condemend? And then, given a chance to support a bill that would truly end torture, he opposes it and encourages the president to veto it? His words promise so much more than his deeds deliver. ((As with Georgia.))
While Senator John McCain was the only official Captain Ian Fishback reached out to that responded to his call for leadership, McCain failed the test Captain Fishback put to him. McCain chose to “sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security” and give up some part “of the idea that is America.” He accepted plaudits and symbolic victories, but when given the chance to act on his fine words and professed ideals, he declined.
I admired the McCain who fought against torture when no other Republican would. I admired him despite the compromises he made. I could not admire the way he declined to back up his words once the opportunity was given to him.
Both the liberal law professor Glenn Greenwald and the conservative columnist Andrew C. McCarthy use the same word to describe McCain’s opposition to torture: “grandstanding.”
N.B. This post was written in the midst of an obviously contentious election campaign – one in which I had strongly considered supporting John McCain but after careful evaluation, had come to the conclusion that Barack Obama was the only candidate suited to our current challenges. While I stand by the content of the post, in retrospect, the tone is a bit overheated. That said – the fact that McCain would backtrack on this issue that was at the core of his reputation for moral authority is a testament to how this issue has become one of the issues in the new “culture war” – this one over national security.
[digg-reddit-me]McCain’s new ad:
Edit: McCain took down the ad from his YouTube page, but it is now posted on some others, so I have replaced the link to the ad in McCain’s YouTube with this copy of it.
The comments it is based on:
In Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver, he predicted this type of attack:
If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.
The question is: Are the American people dumb enough to fall for it?
And it’s far from the first time he has.
Rick Davis, a top McCain adviser and longtime confidante, revealed the McCain strategy for the coming weeks in a comment last week:
This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.
This strategy has been clear for some time – as McCain sought to frame every question of issues as one of character, and as McCain surrogates have relentlessly and viciously attacked Obama’s character.
For example, when discussing Obama’s plan for Iraq, McCain, found it difficult to defend his position as the Iraqi government and the Bush administration moved towards Obama’s position. Instead of defending his plans, he chose to attack Obama’s character and call into question Obama’s patriotism:
It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
Because his opponent disagreed with him on a policy issue, he called him a traitor.
When McCain chose to focus on Obama’s economic record, again, he4 was unable to defend his own plans or records, so he made the false claim that Obama was planning on raising “your” taxes – when in fact Obama’s plan would cut taxes more than McCain’s would for 90% of Americans – and attempted to trivialize Obama’s popularity as mere “celebrity.” Rather than disagreeing with Obama’s proposals, McCain chose to use them to characterize Obama as a lightweight and to mock him.
When Obama was unable to visit soldiers in Germany during his overseas trip, McCain claimed that Obama refused to go without the media – a claim that the members of the media traveling with Obama had personal knowledge was false.
McCain has run ads including carefully edited clips of Obama mocking the views of those who suggest he is messianic to suggest that Obama thinks of himself as the messiah.
Repeatedly, McCain has sought to attack Obama’s character rather than his plans – while Obama himself has mainly refrained from attacking McCain personally.
Even so, during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Obama offered a truce:
[I]n the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.
But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism.
(APPLAUSE)
The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
McCain has refused to accept this true. So if McCain wants this election to be about character, then so be it.
If McCain wants the election to be about character, then he is inviting everyone to attack his character. Not the smartest decision for the guy who a Republican Senator said tried to strangle someone he was negotiating with on a diplomatic mission.
Categories
Now Is the Time to Give…
[digg-reddit-me]
This is an ad that could use some wide circulation. Every $5.01 you give helps. If you believe this election is important (here are some reasons to think it is), then it’s worth donating a few dollars. With John McCain getting an infusion of public cash and the Republican National Committee far outraising the Democratic National Committee, Obama is now evenly matched with McCain.
We need Obama to be able to run a 50-state campaign. We need him to win. To protect the internet, to prevent an(other) unnecessary war.
A few days ago, I received a mailing from the Obama campaign that came in an envelope that read:
It will only be different if we make it so.
Now is the time to give. Before it’s too late.
[digg-reddit-me]
Drudge, that driver of all news stories, is headlining a new BBC poll showing that the world, overwhelmingly supports Obama. This has been clear for some time, but it’s a positive development if Drudge is focusing on it.
The Indian author and former top United Nations official Shashi Tharoor ((Tharoor came in second in straw polls deciding who should replace Kofi Annan as Secretary-General.)) tried to explain why the world wants Obama several months ago in a talk he gave about America’s image in the world.
Tharoor’s thesis is that there are two main “stories” of America told around the world – that of the powerful bully that is uncouth and rough and forces it’s way; and that of the open, pluralistic society where anyone can make something of themselves. Obama clearly represents this second story – and after 8 years of America playing into all the stereotypes of the first story, Tharoor thinks it’s time for a change:
[This is an excerpt. For the complete video, go to Fora.tv.]
At the end of this clip, he quotes from this article by Andrew Sullivan from the Atlantic last year, my favorite excerpts of which are here.
[Photo by World Economic Forum licensed under Creative Commons.]
[digg-reddit-me]Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times reported yesterday on Cheney’s visits to former Soviet states:
Mr. Cheney, who visited Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine this week to express American support, offered no new proposals either, but he described the conflict as a new test for NATO that required a unified response.
This has been the baffling and fundamental flaw of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. How America responded to 9/11, how America endured the occupation of Iraq, how America responded to the Iranian’s development of nuclear weapons, how America responded to Russian aggression in Georgia – each of these represented – in the words of Bush, Cheney, McCain, and other neoconservatives – a “test” of America’s and our allies’ resolve.
Yet – the neoconservatives only offer a single way for America to pass each of these tests: Escalate matters until America can plausibly threaten to use military force.
That was America’s justifiable response to 9/11. It was the Bush administration’s strategy with Saddam Hussein. It has been Cheney’s strategy for containing Iran. It is McCain’s strategy for confronting Russia. The reason neoconservatives are so eager to use military force – instead of diplomacy, containment, alliances, creating and living by systems of rules for international affairs, or economic pressure – is that they believe America’s military might can solve any problem. They are correct that our military superiority ensures that we can defeat any other military on the planet. But what they do not acknowledge is that the military is a blunt weapon and that without a draft, it can only be deployed under limited circumstances and for limited periods. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate these lessons – yet McCain, Bush, Cheney, and company do not seem to have noticed.
Thus, McCain invoked Kennedy’s defense of Berlin when Russia invaded Georgia – saying, “We are all Georgians!” Kennedy had proclaimed, “Eich bin ein Berlinier” to demonstrate our resolve to the Soviet Union – that if they tried to take Berlin, we would protect it as if it were our own home. McCain, by saying that we are all Georgians, was committing the United States to take military action against Russia. Yet, if that is his plan, he has not admitted it. If it is not his plan, then he has not been following the advice given by his hero, Teddy Roosevelt:
Speak softly, and carry a big stick.
McCain talks a good game – but if he means half of what he says, we’ll have more than one new war on our hands by the time he’s through. Either way, he’s not the president I’m hoping for.