U.S. News and World Report via Huffington Post:
Some of President Bush's political allies are angry and embarrassed that he's spending his time on frivolous events when the country is having such bad economic times. "Look at the schedule for Monday," said a Bush adviser. "A highlight of his day was witnessing a tee ball game. ... He is being reduced to child's play."
Is anyone else out there -- like me -- starting to sense, however slightly, that the Bush White House has some desire to use fear mongering for their own political ends?
I suppose the sense of this started to dawn on me -- I dunno -- immediately when Bush was elected, when he started talking down the economy. And I've grown in the conviction (ha ha) that it's so! No one else has noticed that? OK, it must just be me...
But what do you make of this? The Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have legal rights. In other words, being human beings, I guess, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable right, among them apparently being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they have some right, however slight it may be, to know what they're charged with and to see some semblance of due process to determine their guilt or innocence. Shocking!
So here's the White House's spin on this, that now the detainees will be released and will be walking our streets! This from Dana Perino: "I'm sure that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our neighborhoods," referring to al-Qaida's former third in command.
Can you picture that? Khalid strolling down the block? "How you doin' today, Mrs. Brown?" "Great, Khalid, how's your wife?" "She's good. Oh, hello, Mr. B!" "Hey, Khalid, old man, glad to see you're finally out of Gitmo!" "Yeah, thanks, it was really just a little misunderstanding." Little Jenny's ball rolls across the road. Khalid tells him to stay put, "I'll get it for you, Jenny!" "Would you like to buy some Girl Scout cookies, Khalid?" "You have to ask? Let me see how much money I've got."
Here's what the two campaigns boil down to in their essence so far:
Obama -- Here's what I'm going to do as president, here's my plan, here's my promises.
McCain -- That's no good, whatever Obama said, that's not change we can believe in, heh heh.
One thing you notice instantly there is that McCain isn't saying much. It's like The Argument Sketch of Monty Python, just the automatic gainsaying and contradicting of whatever Obama says.
But you have to hand it to McCain. Between the lines, over the months, we've seen the essence of his plan, which is simply to continue Bush's presidency. So there's very little to say on a day to day basis when that is so.
The big dust-up yesterday -- more manufactured controversies stemming from two factors, constant press idiocy and this McCain gainsaying -- points some of this out. But whatever Obama said and no matter how they chose to misconstrue it, he was actually talking about what he's going to do, policy matters. And that's a big difference.
If you're getting your news at Fox, watch out. This is to news what sewage is to steak. Beware.
There's a good listing this morning of some of John McCain's changed positions, flip flops, and deliberate distortions of his position. It's a recommended diary at Kos called "DAMMIT..Tell Me The Truth!" by StuHunter.
It's exhausting to read for the length and audacity of some of McCain's flips, but probably not exhaustive. The man yet lives and speaks!
One that is recent -- hot off the press -- would be his audacious flip on the G.I. Bill. He was opposed to it one day, then the next day took credit for its passage! I'm staggered by that one. Here's a video, which could be a more straightforward presentation, but the guy is also staggered by McCain's flip. By the way, if you watch it, notice how much shifting and pacing John McCain does when he's talking about this. Body language experts out there, what does this tell us? (In the video, the guy says McCain voted against the bill, but the fact is he didn't show up to vote.)
Just glancing down StuHunter's list, how about Yucca Mountain? It's a link to a Nevada article, and they ought to know who has taken what position on this issue of burying nuclear waste. He switched his position when it came time to go to Nevada.
StuHunter has quite an article. It definitely should make everyone wonder about McCain's word. I'm concluding it ain't much good!
We've heard incessant yammering lately about Bill Clinton's "brand" being tarnished, and Barack Obama's "brand" being compromised.
It's about time to start thinking of John McCain's "brand." What is it? I'll be fair and state what it really is: Straight talk and being a maverick.
Now, straight talk means you're speaking the truth as you see it consistently, whether it's welcome or not. And being a maverick has an element of truth-telling as well, because it means you're standing up for the truth as you see it, regardless of what others of your group may think.
This is a brand worth having. And it's a brand worth protecting.
But if he says one thing one day and another thing the next day, the brand will suffer. All it takes is something simple. Something as simple as this: 1) Obama should go to Iraq; 2) Obama shouldn't go to Iraq. That's simple enough for even the media to see as a contradiction. It's not straight talk. It's being two-faced, without integrity.
Of course I hope McCain steps in it bad, but for his own sake he'd better be careful.
OK, tell me, who's going to be stupid enough to buy this? I mean, besides Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
John McCain has been making a federal case out of it that Barack Obama hasn't been to Iraq lately. You've got to go to Iraq, you've got to go to Iraq, you've got to go to Iraq!
Now, Obama has a whole overseas trip planned. He's stopping everywhere. He'll be showered with flowers. He'll be greeted as a liberator. And he's going to Iraq.
McCain is getting his way, right? Obama's going to Iraq, right? That's what McCain wants, right? Wrong.
Now McCain spokesman Brian Rogers says, "I guess the question is, if indeed he's [going] to go to Iraq, and nothing that he sees will change or impact his decision-making on this, then why is he going? Is it just to check a box politically? It sort of represents the kind of cynical politics that most people here, that the American people are pretty sick and tired of."
Boy, oh, boy! But I do like that last sentence, but applying it to the whining, tiresome McCain campaign: "It sort of represents the kind of cynical politics that most people here, that the American people are pretty sick and tired of." It doesn't just "sort of" represent cynical politics. It is cynical politics, and we are sick and tired of it.
Here's an interesting quote from Sgt. Kenyon Ralph, 24, of San Diego. He's a Marine reservist who's served twice in Iraq. He was once a registered Republican and voted for Bush two times. But now he's against the war and will not vote for someone who supports keeping troops in Iraq.
Sgt. Ralph says of John McCain, "What did he say? One hundred years or something. We've got five down and 95 more years to go."
There's some interesting phrases in the ABC article, David Wright's report from Colombia. On the subject of how his wartime experience qualified him to be president, "McCain bristled."
Then "McCain became visibly angry." Then McCain says, "Please." Wright says McCain "recoil[ed] back in his seat in distaste at the very question."
And after that, as we've seen with Lieberman before and McCain aide Mark Salter, correcting or rescuing McCain from a verbal boo-boo or confusion, Wright says, "McCain allies [sic] Sen. Lindsey Graham stepped in to rescue him." Graham yammers on for a while. Then Lieberman, who happens to be there again, expresses "admiration" for McCain's wartime service, allowing McCain time to calm down. Wright says, "McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction."
Something of a hothead, we'd say!John McCain says, "I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences ...I am always reluctant to talk about these things."
For someone so reluctant to talk about his experiences, it's extraordinary how often the subject comes up. We've heard him say it over and over -- about his service, being a POW, etc. It's been on his ads, and the last few days we've heard little else.
That line Biden came up with for Rudy G, a noun, a verb, and 9/11. We could easily see John McCain in the same way, but substitute Vietnam. This was good service. But why are we still talking about 40 years ago?
I think it was 1967 when he went down, 1966, something like that. The year of The Monkees! It's been a while back!
John McCain's mouth and mind are working at cross purposes again, at odds with one another. We'll call it the onset or steady progression of--- I forget what it is.
This time the aging senator lost his mental balance -- just an isolated misstep, we hope -- over two distinct African countries, Sudan and Somalia. But fortunately there was a nice aide there -- no mention whether he was wearing a white coat -- named Mr. Mark Salter, who was able to kindly correct the faltering senator.
McCain had asked, "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?" But, darnit, he meant Sudan. So this was where the nice Mr. Salter stepped in and gently corrected him by saying "Sudan," which McCain then repeated, "Sudan."
So, remember this when you go to elect a President. You're not just electing the man, you're electing his team of kind assistants and nurses. Let's make sure he's well-staffed and getting the best of care.
We've found something the Republicans are good at! Something besides blowing up the world, spending money, and letting the terrorists run wild. And that's whining, complaining, crying, moaning, pointing fingers, and just being over-the-top outraged!
John McCain pretends to be outraged at General Clark, and he's pointing fingers. Somehow it's not just Clark, but it's this big bad meanie Barack Obama's fault as well. General Clark, apparently a grown up, expresses his opinion, and that's Obama's fault!
How long, how much have we suffered from these "adults" in the Republican party who have bemoaned the "victim society?" And yet John McCain makes himself the victim of "an attack" that wasn't an attack. The world is upside down for these guys.
Of course John McCain has basically one item on his resume that is unassailable, that he used to fly planes till somehow they crashed. Then he was a prisoner of war for five years. These are not facts we're supposed to mention in any way, shape, or form, so please don't link to this.
It seems like a legitimate opinion to say that this in itself doesn't qualify you for much. Maybe a subscription to the Medal of the Month Club, a vigorous handshake, and an extra large flag at your funeral. There are benefits -- and you should milk them for all they're worth. But to turn your good service around and say that anyone who mentions it, that makes you a victim, that you're worthy of our votes because of it -- that's a long road to travel to end up exactly ... nowhere.
There are plenty of folks out there who will say John McCain did a patriotic thing by fighting in Vietnam. OK, he did. But, really, don't we remember 50,000 other guys did too? They're not all going to be president because of it. Including John Kerry, who, if memory serves, didn't get much out of it.
McCain's phony, fake outrage is more Republican idiocy. But this is one of those things the (otherwise) incompetent Republicans know how to do. Stir the pot, shout it from the rooftops: They alone are patriotic! No one dare question the sacred Republicans!
Since we always listen to the "generals on the ground" -- and give them the first option of withdrawal or carpet bombing -- we should listen to Wes Clark. You see, folks, Wes Clark is a general. And I'm not going to sit here and allow no one no how to be a'bad-mouthin' this here general!
If Wes Clark says, "John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues," that's good enough for me.
Now be careful what you say. Because anyone who says anything against Wes Clark is criticizing a general. And if there's anything we should know from the last eight years, it is that generals cannot be criticized.
