2008 Presidental Election: Obama v McCain
Comments
-
Boygabriel wrote: Iraq is possibly the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history...
Okay -- sorry, but my "history pedant" side won out over my support for Obama over McCain. So I hope you'll indulge me riffing some greater blunders for you:
The Bay Of Pigs.
Iran/Contra.
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
The Bay of Tonkin.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. (Repeated just because saying "Smoot-Hawley" is fun.) -
queencallipygos wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]Iraq is possibly the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history...
Okay -- sorry, but my "history pedant" side won out over my support for Obama over McCain. So I hope you'll indulge me riffing some greater blunders for you:
The Bay Of Pigs.
Iran/Contra.
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
The Bay of Tonkin.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. (Repeated just because saying "Smoot-Hawley" is fun.)
again, my terminology was far too broad.
I'm happy to debate this topic in another post, but as far as this thread is concerned, my point should have been: Iraq is a gigantic tragic mistake, and McCain was, is, and will continue to be a supporter of it. -
daver wrote: I don't say this to say that he is a fibber or anything, I'm just saying that things change over time and statements of both McCain and Obama end up not being what they would say now, but accurately reflect what they believed at the time given the information they had access to. I think many of the McCain list you posted fall into that category. Which isn't to say that he hasn't said his share of things that are flat out wrong.
That is well said. Good perspective.
I guess what I'm focused on is two things:
1) conservative pundit lies that McCain "has been more right about Iraq than anyone" © Jonah Goldberg in the LATimes this week
2) McCain continues to support the Iraq War with an ever-evolving reasoning about why we should stay. Meanwhile Iraqi deaths and US injuries (and MONEY) continue to pile up. Year after year after year.
We're going to war for WMDs! - the Bush Admin.
no WMDs found
We're doing a troop surge to create room for political progress - Bush/McSame
little political progress has been made
We need to stabilize Iraq to prevent it from becoming a terrorist haven. -Bush/McSame
Iraqi leaders want terrorists running their country as little as we do. They have strong nationalistic/ethnic identity, and have no interest in letting Al Qaeda (or Iran for that matter) to overrun their country.
When does McCain get held responsible for supporting the continued failure of Iraq? -
Part of the reason I think McCain is going to lose is just how similar his policies are to that of George Bush. I know daver likes to point out that at one point (after 9/11) Bush was the most popular president in US history. But his popularity today is a different story. (He keeps breaking his own record for least popular president in the 70-year history of such polling.)
As Matt Yglesias says below, I think McCain truly fails to grasp (a) how similar his policies are to Bush's and (b) just how big of a liability this is. Loyal Republicans are going to vote for McCain either way, but independents and moderates are a different story...In some ways, I think McCain himself doesn't quite realize how Bush-esque he is. He clearly doesn't like Bush, and has been disliking him for a long time. But that kind of personalized, overblown disdain for Bush-the-man can wind up leading you to overestimate Bush-the-grand-strategist. To McCain, Bush's policies have failed because of Bush. Replace Bush with McCain and shift tactics around the margins, and the same basic ideas should work out fine. It's a nice theory, but I don't think it's a true theory.
-
Matt Yglesias wrote: To McCain, Bush's policies have failed because of Bush. Replace Bush with McCain and shift tactics around the margins, and the same basic ideas should work out fine. It's a nice theory, but I don't think it's a true theory.
OhMyGawd! Isn't that damn near the _exact_ thing that Obama said at one point??? Which I conveniently posted above...
"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."
-
daver wrote: [quote=Matt Yglesias]To McCain, Bush's policies have failed because of Bush. Replace Bush with McCain and shift tactics around the margins, and the same basic ideas should work out fine. It's a nice theory, but I don't think it's a true theory.
OhMyGawd! Isn't that damn near the _exact_ thing that Obama said at one point??? Which I conveniently posted above...
at one point about one issue (Iraq troop levels) -
Heh, the hits just keep on coming.
McCain totally reverses self, now backs Bush's wiretapping program.A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
-
McCain's main claims are national defense, maverick-ness, straightalking-ness
None of these areas are going very well for him. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=alafairnadia][quote=Boygabriel]Iraq is possibly the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history,
I totally disagree with this. I think it is a stupid war - one that should have never gotten off the ground - but we've been in more brutal, more stupid wars with far more loss of life and have supported, no, sanctioned, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. I'd say in the last 20-30 years, the Iraq war tied in with 9/11 hyper-absurdity, has been an extremely serious foreign policy blunder, but definitely not the worst. for reference, I give you latin america, africa and asia: regions where our blatant support of militarism and genocide have wreaked havoc on millions.
so yes, Iraq is bad. it's gross. but it's not the worst.
Well yeah. I shouldn't have used a term as broad as 'foriegn policy blunder'. There are too many ways to define that.
At any rate, in the past 10-15 years, Iraq is easily one of the biggest blunders/crimes/mistakes perpetrated by the U.S. and John McCain's record of nearly full support for it should be given full attention by the voters and the media.
A good 60-70% of Americans think Iraq was a mistake and should be ended asap. Obama was basically against the war from the beginning. John McCain still supports it. Let's hope these facts are reflected in the opinion polls.
Iraq the biggest blunder? Geez, if you read a little you won't make so many mistakes. How about the 800,000 Rwandans that were killed in the space of 100 days due to Clintons refusal to help? 10,000.00 slaughtered Per Day.
Quote from a pro Obama blog:
"Clinton did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term 'genocide,' for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing 'to try to limit what occurred.' Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective."
And post the link where your got "A good 60-70% of Americans think Iraq was a mistake" ? -
eggcream wrote: Iraq the biggest blunder?
Nope. Not what I said. Try again.And post the link where your got "A good 60-70% of Americans think Iraq was a mistake" ?
Gladly.
April 24, 2008
Opposition to Iraq War Reaches New High
Sixty-three percent say U.S. made mistake in sending troops
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- The most recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds 63% of Americans saying the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, a new high mark by one percentage point.
The new high in Iraq war opposition is also notable because it is the highest "mistake" percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the United States -- surpassing by two points the 61% who said the Vietnam War was a mistake in May 1971. At that time, however, Gallup found greater uncertainty (11% no opinion) and lower outright support for the Vietnam War (28% said it was not a mistake) than it does for the Iraq war today (36%), so it is not clear-cut as to which war was less popular with the American public.
When Gallup has asked about Vietnam retrospectively over the years since the war ended, as many as 74% of Americans (in 1990) said it was a mistake.
In February and March 1952, a majority of Americans also said the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Korea, the only other U.S. intervention since 1950 that has registered majority opposition.
Last summer, just 25% said the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Afghanistan. Opposition to the first Persian Gulf War reached only as high as 30%, in January 1991 (before actual fighting began; after fighting commenced, the high was just 21%).
By now, public opposition to the war is pretty well-established. Gallup has found at least half of Americans calling the war a mistake in all but one survey since December 2005. The average percentage saying the war is a mistake has increased every year of the conflict, and is nearly twice as high thus far in 2008 (the sixth year of the conflict) as it was in the initial year.
Implications
Even though majority opposition to the Iraq war is basically cemented, other Gallup polling has found that the public does not necessarily advocate a quick end to the war. While a majority now favors a timetable for withdrawing troops, only about one in five Americans think the withdrawal should begin immediately and be completed as soon as possible.
The public will implicitly choose one path on Iraq this fall, given its choice between Republican presidential candidate John McCain (who favors the war and argues the consequences of withdrawal would be severe) and either Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (both of whom oppose the war and want to end it as quickly as they deem prudent).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,016 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted April 18-20, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail [email protected] -
So someone finally came forward and posted it, the Michelle Obama "whitey" video:
Don't say I didn't warn you... -
you got eggcream's hopes up.
-
"If your concern is for women’s rights and reproductive freedom, McCain is a nightmare."
Carpetbagger sez:...McCain is practically desperate to stack the court with more far-right justices — his active support for Bork wasn’t an accident — but if we take a more general look at McCain and women’s issues, we see that McCain will maintain the global gag order, supports the court’s ruling on Ledbetter, has expressed no interest in civil rights protections for women, and has voted against everything from requiring health care plans to cover birth control to international family planning funding to public education for emergency contraception. And don’t forget, McCain will not only replace Supreme Court justices, but also lower-court judges and entire executive-branch bureaucracy with conservative Republican officials.
If your concern is for women’s rights and reproductive freedom, McCain is a nightmare.
Don’t make a reckless and irresponsible gamble when so much is at stake — especially when a progressive Democrat who agrees with Clinton on practically everything is right there on the ballot next to the conservative Republican who disagrees with Clinton on practically everything.
This isn’t a tough call. It’s not even close. -
McCain isn't as pro-life as the pro-life people would like, but he is FAR from pro-choice by any stretch of the imagination. NARAL (pro-choice) rates Obama at 100%, McCain at 0%. NRLC (pro-life) rates Obama at 0%, McCain at 75%. The 75% (rather than 100%) is mostly due to McCain's support for stem cell research.
So, um, if you are a one-trick pony, there ya go. -
daver wrote: McCain isn't as pro-life as the pro-life people would like, but he is FAR from pro-choice by any stretch of the imagination. NARAL (pro-choice) rates Obama at 100%, McCain at 0%. NRLC (pro-life) rates Obama at 0%, McCain at 75%. The 75% (rather than 100%) is mostly due to McCain's support for stem cell research.
I think being pro-choice was giuliani's only saving grace as a repub.
So, um, if you are a one-trick pony, there ya go. -
From the Weekly Standard, as quoted in my original blog link:
McCain could hardly be more anti-choice.
Arizona senator John McCain...is far and away the most consistently anti-abortion of all the top contenders. During his 20 years in the Senate (plus four in the House), he has never failed to cast his vote in favor of whatever abortion restrictions are arguably permitted under Roe v. Wade: bans against partial-birth abortion, abortions on military bases, transporting minors across state lines to obtain abortions behind their parents’ backs, and government funding for abortion both in the United States and abroad (all but the transporting-minors bill have become federal law). In addition, McCain has voted to confirm every “strict constructionist” judge (that is, disinclined to find, à la Roe, a right to abortion and related activities enshrined in the Constitution) appointed by the various Republican presidents who have served during his tenure, including Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. -
Boygabriel wrote: McCain could hardly be more anti-choice.
Yes, actually, he could. But like I said, he is far from pro-choice and definitely falls into the pro-life category. -
daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]McCain could hardly be more anti-choice.
Yes, actually, he could. But like I said, he is far from pro-choice and definitely falls into the pro-life category.
agreed. he is still teh ebil. I bet his mom wishes she'd aborted him.
-
daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]McCain could hardly be more anti-choice.
Yes, actually, he could.
based on his voting record I don't see much point in making this distinction. McCain gets enough false publicity as a 'moderate', we don't need to obfuscate what he would do to the right to choose. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver][quote=Boygabriel]McCain could hardly be more anti-choice.
Yes, actually, he could.
based on his voting record I don't see much point in making this distinction. McCain gets enough false publicity as a 'moderate', we don't need to obfuscate what he would do to the right to choose.
Because we are honest? Because if we stretch the truth it diminishes our point?
Example. Michael Moore's films often have a lot of good things in them that are 100% true. But then he has to take them one step further and put in garbage. This makes it very easy for others to dismiss the _whole_ thing as garbage, which isn't the case. Obviously zealots on either side are going to support their side without regard to facts, but there is a vast swath of people in the middle that may be swayed one way or the other, and easily disproved exaggerations are _not_ the way to do it. -
But McCain's voting record is about as anti-choice as you can get. To compare that to something Michael Moore would say is more of a stretch than anything I've written here.
-
Boygabriel wrote: But McCain's voting record is about as anti-choice as you can get. To compare that to something Michael Moore would say is more of a stretch than anything I've written here.
In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would "not support repeal of Roe vs Wade" because it would force women to undergo illegal operations. He has subsequently said that he was speaking about the need to change the "culture of America", and supports the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: "Top Ten Flip-Flops" Feb 5, 2008Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A (McCain): I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007On “Meet the Press,” McCain said he had “come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions” to an outright ban on abortions. “I don’t claim to be a theologian, but I have my moral beliefs.” If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. “But I would not prosecute a woman” who obtained an abortion.
McCain supports an exception for rape:
Source: Boston Globe, p. A9 Jan 31, 2000He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.”
Source: New York Times, p. A17 Jan 25, 2000KEYES [to McCain]: What you would say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion? You answered [earlier today] that the choice would be up to her and then that you’d have a family conference. That displayed a profound lack of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn’t say, “Let’s have a family conference.” You’d look at her and say “Just Say No,“ because that is morally wrong. It is God’s choice that that child is in the womb. And for us to usurp that choice in contradiction of our declaration of principles is just as wrong.
McCAIN: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.
Source: (X-ref from Keyes) GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000McCain was asked how he could be anti-abortion and still vote to support fetal tissue research. He supports fetal-tissue research, McCain said, because it has helped make progress against Parkinson’s disease. McCain concluded that abortion rights and anti-abortion activists should cooperate on issues of foster care and adoption. He had made his decision on abortion, he said, “after a lot of study, consultation, and a lot of prayer.” He added, “I’d like to have less intensity on this issue.”
Source: Boston Globe, p. A11 Jan 22, 2000McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999On the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices based on an abortion litmus-test, “McCain has said that he will nominate justices based on their experience, and those who share his values,” said a spokesman.
Source: Associated Press Jun 14, 1999Boygabriel wrote: McCain could hardly be more anti-choice.
Yes, he could, and here are a few ways how:
1) He could not have been flippy-floppy on the issue of overturning Roe v Wade over the years.
2) He could stop supporting and consistently voting for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
3) He could drop the rape, incest, and life of the mother exemptions for abortion.
4) He could require more than the benefit of the doubt for an alleged rape.
5) Rather than saying that he would have a sit down family discussion with a daughter choosing abortion, to persuade her about the unborn's rights, he could unilaterally decide it for her by fully supporting no abortion.
6) He could stop supporting fetal tissue research.
7) He could (openly) support an abortion litmus test for Supreme Court justices.
Now, let me state again that John McCain is NOT pro-choice by ANY stretch of the imagination. There are, however, plenty who believe that he is not pro-life enough. I have listed some of the reasons why. For one to state that there is no way that John McCain could be any more anti-choice is not accurate. Although he _is_ anti-choice, he could, in fact, be _even more_ so. -
Well said. Thank you for going in depth.
I think part of our disagreement is on the degree to which some of the things you listed count as being 'more (or less) anti-choice'. -
Well said. Thank you for going in depth.
I think part of our disagreement is on the degree to which some of the things you listed count as being 'more (or less) anti-choice'. -
-
-
Carnivore wrote: From NARAL on McCain vs. Obama:
NARAL is where daver go the 100% v. 75% stat for earlier. I agree with daver - mccain isn't a total psycho pro-lifer, he's just a psycho pro-lifer. the difference to folks on my side of the fence is meaningless. on his side? could be an issue.
http://www.naral.org/elections/obama-or-mccain.html -
Carnivore wrote: From NARAL on McCain vs. Obama:
NARAL is where daver go the 100% v. 75% stat for earlier. I agree with daver - mccain isn't a total psycho pro-lifer, he's just a psycho pro-lifer. the difference to folks on my side of the fence is meaningless. on his side? could be an issue.
http://www.naral.org/elections/obama-or-mccain.html -
Interesting thoughts on Obama's Economic Policy team. Personally I don't know a ton about them.
More Furman Furor
What I can't figure out about the furor of Barack Obama's decision to name Jason Furman his economic policy director is where have these people been? This is like getting pissed at Project Runway because it's a show about clothes.
Austen Goolsbee, Obama's top economics adviser is from the University of Chicago (business school, which is a bit different than economics department, but still!). When Michael Moore's Sicko came out, he wrote a review of it for Slate that argued against a single payer solution in America. Obama's social and economic policy has been relentlessly center-left, focused on tax cuts and renewable energy credits. His health plan was the only one of the major three to not even attempt universality. This stuff is no surprise. Obama has many virtues, but his domestic policy has been consistently center-left. Those who're shocked simply haven't been paying attention.
Meanwhile, as Matt says, Furman has been very heterodox on Wal-Mart (in ways that I think partly right and brilliant and partly wrong and short-sighted), but he was a staunch ally during the Social Security privatization fight, and did as much as any economist not named Dean Baker to push back on the then-pervasive idea that Social Security was in crisis and required conservative reform.
The Left would be smart to convince Obama to add a persuasive, rigorous, labor economist like Jared Bernstein or Josh Bivens to his team, but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking Obama has just made some staffing error here. Rather, he's been consistent in his economic policies and staff picks throughout the campaign, and there's every reason to think his actions reflect his underlying beliefs. But if unions wanted an economic lefty, they should've endorsed John Edwards in the primary, or at least demanded that Obama staff up with trusted labor types in order to gain their support back when he was in a close primary race. To get pissed now is like yelling at someone because they didn't lock the doors after you let the horses out.
Posted by Ezra Klein on June 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Permalink -
Interesting thoughts on Obama's Economic Policy team. Personally I don't know a ton about them.
More Furman Furor
What I can't figure out about the furor of Barack Obama's decision to name Jason Furman his economic policy director is where have these people been? This is like getting pissed at Project Runway because it's a show about clothes.
Austen Goolsbee, Obama's top economics adviser is from the University of Chicago (business school, which is a bit different than economics department, but still!). When Michael Moore's Sicko came out, he wrote a review of it for Slate that argued against a single payer solution in America. Obama's social and economic policy has been relentlessly center-left, focused on tax cuts and renewable energy credits. His health plan was the only one of the major three to not even attempt universality. This stuff is no surprise. Obama has many virtues, but his domestic policy has been consistently center-left. Those who're shocked simply haven't been paying attention.
Meanwhile, as Matt says, Furman has been very heterodox on Wal-Mart (in ways that I think partly right and brilliant and partly wrong and short-sighted), but he was a staunch ally during the Social Security privatization fight, and did as much as any economist not named Dean Baker to push back on the then-pervasive idea that Social Security was in crisis and required conservative reform.
The Left would be smart to convince Obama to add a persuasive, rigorous, labor economist like Jared Bernstein or Josh Bivens to his team, but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking Obama has just made some staffing error here. Rather, he's been consistent in his economic policies and staff picks throughout the campaign, and there's every reason to think his actions reflect his underlying beliefs. But if unions wanted an economic lefty, they should've endorsed John Edwards in the primary, or at least demanded that Obama staff up with trusted labor types in order to gain their support back when he was in a close primary race. To get pissed now is like yelling at someone because they didn't lock the doors after you let the horses out.
Posted by Ezra Klein on June 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Permalink
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds