by hilzoy
A commenter at the Monthly noted that my last post was “surprisingly snarky” for me. I meant it, and I stand by it, but I take his point. There was something else, which I wasn’t prepared to write about. Maybe I’m still not. But what the heck:
I was primed by watching the RNC’s 9/11 tribute. It revolted me: both the idea of using 9/11 in this context, and the idea that it should be used by the party of George “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now” Bush. But then came McCain, saying:
” I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination. I’m running for president to keep the country I love safe, and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has.”
I remembered this:
“Within hours [after 9/11], Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. (…)
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!””
That’s a very peculiar way of hating war and preventing other families from risking their loved ones.
During the debate over the Iraq War Resolution, John McCain said this:
“We have a choice. The men and women who wear the uniform of our country, and who might lose their lives in service to our cause, do not. They will do their duty, as we see fit to define it for them.
We have a responsibility to these men and women to judge responsibly when our security is so threatened that we must call on them to uphold their oath to defend it. When we call them to serve, they will make us proud. We should strive to make them proud by showing deliberation, judgment, and statesmanship in the debate that will determine their mission.”
He then proceeded to show none of these virtues, and to collude in making the worst foreign policy judgment in decades.
I am very, very angry about the Iraq war, and about the lives it has cost. When I hear someone who voted for that war talk about how very much he hates war, and how he will do everything he can to avoid it, it makes me angry. And when I hear that in the midst of a convention full of people who act as though they own love of country, concern for the troops, duty, honor, and service — as though none of the rest of us has ever put the interests of others before our own, or loved our country, or lost friends in combat — and acting this way in apparently complete disregard for their own disastrous record — it makes me even angrier.
I didn’t want to write about that. It’s still pretty close to the bone. But I have never thought that I had a monopoly on honor and decency and love for my country. I wish more prominent Republicans would stop assuming that they do.
When you’ve lost Hilzoy’s goodwill and toleration …
Being in government warps people, then warped people think it’s a niche, and pretty soon nobody’s safe.
Hilzoy, in his speech tonight McCain gave a litany of the horrors that would follow America’s defeat in Iraq. The first item on the list was that our military would be demoralized by it; the last item was that our nation’s security would be reduced. Maybe the litany was meant to be in reverse order of importance, maybe not. The fact remains that McCain (and the GOP generally) pay lip service to the idea that our military exists to serve the nation, but he cannot let go of the idea that the opposite is true: the nation exists to serve the military. Our troops want to win, dagnabit, and denying them the honor of winning is too horrible to contemplate. This is a deranged view of America, its military, and the people who wear the uniform. John McCain thinks of himself as a patriot. God spare us from such patriots.
–TP
Thanks, Hilzoy. That attitude about the military upset me too — a lot. Yes, I did not serve! My family has no military tradition; to be honest, it didn’t even occur to me as a possibility until we went to war when I was 21, and I decided (correctly) that the war would be over before I got through basic, so I didn’t. Then too, I had glasses, flat feet, hay fever, and bunions; I doubted it was a career that played to my strengths. But I don’t think that makes me undeserving to love America. I resent Sarah Palin’s smug little snark about how Biden and Obama can’t be real fighters b/c they didn’t go to war. That says that she despises all of us who didn’t. Well, fnck her too, and the tank she rode in on.
To be fair, McCain himself went out of his way to equate other kinds of service, including politics, ministry, and teaching, with military service. That’s the attitude of most veterans I’ve met, they’re proud but not contemptuous. Them, I respect.
Was the rest of the RNC more in tune with Palin, or McCain? Well, she got more applause, but I don’t think that was why. (Well, more applause until the end, when the self-proclaimed NON-anointed-One hollered at the crowd to stand up and applaud him.) What did make me feel that way was the constant “USA” chants. I love my country, but that chant seemed to say that it was theirs and theirs alone, that their Party, their candidate was so clearly the truly American one, that cheering the country meant the same thing as cheering the candidate. Maybe I’m overreading simple patriotism, but that’s how it made me feel.
Jim Henley said something that it’s worth keeping in mind: “Country First” is a fascist slogan. It certainly is in the hands of this bunch of two-faced authoritarians, who deny the American-ness and patriotism of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
To hell with giving them the benefit of the doubt; they’ve forfeited that right.
Thanks, Hilzoy, for saying what needed to be said.
Hey Hilzoy,
I responded at the Monthly, but I hope you didn’t take it as any sort of criticism. It was an observation, and an offhand one. I just watched the video (I avoided the convention tonight knowing that it would annoy me), and I understand where you’re coming from. I agreed with Olbermann’s take at the end. It was inappropriate.
If you did take it as criticism, I want to apologize. It wasn’t meant that way.
Sujal
hilzoy: Disgusting and shameful. Only words I can think of to describe McCain and his attitude.
Trilobite: What did make me feel that way was the constant “USA” chants. I love my country, but that chant seemed to say that it was theirs and theirs alone, that their Party, their candidate was so clearly the truly American one, that cheering the country meant the same thing as cheering the candidate.
That’s really one of the things I hate about the GOP. The Dem candidate is never a patriot, he’s usually an out-and-out traitor. But the Republican candidate is a freakin’ hero. McCain can say he doesn’t like to talk about being a POW, but his campaign can bring it up every 5 minutes and that’s just peachy. When Kerry gets a Purple Heart, though, it was self-inflicted and a bunch a-holes can wear Purple Heart band-aids but they’re still the true patriots. They disgust me and they dishonor our soldiers and our country.
The “Republicans are the only real patriots” BS pisses me off more than anything else they do. But I think I’ll stop my rant now, I don’t think its really adding much to the conversation.
I’ll try a little less anger this time, wishe me luck. ^.^
They will do their duty, as we see fit to define it for them.
That line just bugs the hell out of me. Yes, technically Congress and the President define the duties of the military. But something about that wording… I think its the “as we see fit” that bothers me the most. It sounds incredibly arbitrary and cocky. To be honest, it sounds like McCain doesn’t give a damn about the soldiers, he only cares about looking tough or getting even with country X for disagreeing with us.
McCain’s record on the military is horrendous (see some of hilzoy’s posts). It demonstrates a lack of care about not only individual troops, but also the quality of our military. (How are we supposed to have the best volunteer army in the world if we treat our volunteers like crap?) Yet John McCain gets to run as being pro-military and he doesn’t get called on it. John McCain gets to be a warmonger, but its okay because we know he cares about our troops.
I call BS on that.
Of course, all this concern about war and public policy makes you an
unseriousangry liberal.Jon Stewart is increasingly one of the only people on TV in a position to say hard truths. He got a prolonged ovation the other night with one that applies here. After a clip of some patriotic display at the Dem convention (the retired generals, I think):
“Of course, this isn’t necessary for the Republicans, who everyone knows love their country; they just hate half the people in it.”
Although I think there are significant differences in Obama’s and McCain’s approaches to foreign affairs, even Obama does not seem to be interested in calling into question the fundamental militarism that underlies our nation’s bloated defense budgets and our general approach to foreign affairs. Much of the debate this fall promises to be about whether we continue the escalation of the war on Iraq (McCain), or whether we should instead escalate the war on Afghanistan (Obama).
I share your distaste at the GOP’s attitude toward war, but the Democrats’ attitude seems different in degree not kind.
Another necessary truth that’s being passed over way too quietly:
Tonight Stewart led off the show with the first acknowledgement on national television (to my knowledge) of the ongoing police action in St. Paul.
“But first, a word from the sponsor of the Republican National Convention: Mace. When someone’s standing in front of you, and you want them to move: Mace. When ‘get the f*** out of here’ won’t do: Mace.”
Did you know that the RNC organizers took out a $10 million insurance policy for suits against the police and city, so that taxpayers are off the hook and there is no incentive whatsoever for police to stay within the law? Why, it’s almost as if the Republicans wanted to encourage mass arrests, gassing, and excessive force.
Arrests are up to 500 now, almost half with felony charges. Terrorism charges have been filed against eight Republican Welcoming Committee members, most of whom were taken in the house raids over the weekend. Conspiracy to riot = planning to assemble peaceably. All it takes is for the police infiltrators to say it isn’t going to be peacable.
“I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination. I’m running for president to keep the country I love safe, and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has.” J.S. McCain, 9/4/08
“Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran” J.S. McCain, 5/18/07
John hates war so much, he sings funny parodies about it. Sadly, it has been a long time since the Straight Talk Express drove down my street.
Nell,
Christ… that explains a lot. Thanks for the info.
It’s only war to hate, if it’s not one-sided.
If “we” use sand[n-word]s for target practice and to fulfill our obligations under the Ledeen doctrine, that’s OK. It’s time for the “I hate war”, when those towelheads have the gall to shoot back in any effective way.
[/snark]
—
What’s also mainly ignored in the media is the reaction of the justice system to the assassination attempt against Obama/Biden during the Dem convention.
Justitia caeca dextro oculo again it seems.
Hartmut: Wow. Just wow. It’s almost as if politics trumps human life. Although it isn’t nearly as bad, I kinda get an inkling of what running against Mugabe in Zimbabwe might be like.
Also, what does ‘justitia caeca dextro oculo’ mean? The translation tool I used gave me ‘Equity blind right-hand eye’ but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Nell: Arrests are up to 500 now, almost half with felony charges. Terrorism charges have been filed against eight Republican Welcoming Committee members, most of whom were taken in the house raids over the weekend. Conspiracy to riot = planning to assemble peaceably. All it takes is for the police infiltrators to say it isn’t going to be peacable.
It is most disturbing – and I say that with all sympathy for those who have been arrested, tear-gassed, threatened, etc – that this has not been on the mainstream news. If the Republican Party wanted to present themselves as a party under threat from terrorists, the mass arrests would be on the news – big, showy, “look at us, the terrorists want to silence us” speeches.
Instead it is all happening very quietly – reporters aren’t talking about it, Republican politicians aren’t talking about it – hell, Democratic politicians aren’t talking about it. Merely, the Republican Party is making clear that when they have a convention in a city of their choice, they will tolerate no visible dissent, no public protests.
Earlier this week, I got linked to a livejournal written by someone who lives in St Pauls who was simply cycling on a street near the convention, with the intent of taking photos if there was anything interesting to see: and the police blocked both ends of the street, and the journaller escaped arrest only because as it happened, they were among the last to be rounded up, and by the end the police weren’t bothering to process their pickups through an arrest, just rounding them up and turning them loose.
The journaller said that it was clear that while some of the people on the street might have been walking towards the convention centre with the intent of joining a protest, most were locals – people who lived there, were shopping there, or just walking through.
I didn’t keep track of the link – I picked it off a friends-list friends-list, I should think – but it confirmed independently what Glenn Greenwald has been saying and the mainstream news is not reporting: the RNC are making sure there are no messy visuals of protesters at their convention. First Amendment? What’s that?
I don’t want to invoke Godwin, but this really gives off fascist vibes. And I keep wondering why the mainstream media hasn’t said a thing. Are they afraid of repercussions by Bush before he leaves town? Do they not think police-state tactics in the heart of America is newsworthy?
Of course this angers me. But more than that, it scares me and makes me really worry about the future of my country. I keep getting back to the same thought I had during Katrina: This is America! That kind of stuff doesn’t happen here!
At least, it used to not happen here.
“It is most disturbing – and I say that with all sympathy for those who have been arrested, tear-gassed, threatened, etc – that this has not been on the mainstream news.”
Wtf are you talking about?
Obviously you didn’t make even the most cursory look at the news.
Google News:
Sure, 1,185 stories: hell of a way to not be mentioned.
“It is most disturbing – and I say that with all sympathy for those who have been arrested, tear-gassed, threatened, etc – that this has not been on the mainstream news.”
Wtf are you talking about?
Google News:
Sure, 1,185 stories: hell of a way to not be mentioned. That’s the first of 8 pages worth of stories, all major U.S. excerpted from the 1st page of results here out of “all 1,185 news articles.”
Hell of a way to ignore it.
Also, what does ‘justitia caeca dextro oculo’ mean? The translation tool I used gave me ‘Equity blind right-hand eye’ but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Justitia (the anthropomorphic manifestation of justice, usually depicted with sword, scales* and a blindfold) is blind on the right eye (only). That saying that became popular during the 20th century** (I don’t know when it was coined) means that the justice system has a strong tendency to ignore crimes on the right while going without mercy after crimes or alleged violations on the left often bending the law during the process.
*no, she is not a reptile or fish 😉
**Most notorious in Weimar Germany (but also up to the present day), when right-wing assassins received leniency for “patriotic motives” while the mere suspicion of wrongdoings on the left (like running away from riot police as proof of criminal intent)led to preemptive incarceration.
“And I keep wondering why the mainstream media hasn’t said a thing.”
Again: wtf?
Worst major speech I’ve ever seen by a politician. It was downright painful to watch at points.
The Washington Post even has video with their main story today.
They also have this Reuters story and this AP story and a number of prior stories, such as this and this and more.
That last:
Similarly see CNN, NY Times, LA Times, and every damn major paper there is.
CBS News:
MSNBC:
Etc.
This is a hell of a way to suppress news. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually bother to check the news before writing stuff like “And I keep wondering why the mainstream media hasn’t said a thing”?
The sickening new Repub slogan, “Country First” makes the slur against Democrats, and Obama in particular, a bedrock component of their campaign. It’s a gross insult that constantly implies your opponent puts his interests over the Nation’s. Yet McCain has the gall to claim he doesn’t attack Obama’s patriotism, just his “judgment.”
The Republicans nauseate me.
The Washington Post even has video with their main story today.
They also have this Reuters story and this AP story and a number of prior stories, such as this and this and more.
That last:
Similarly see CNN, NY Times, LA Times, and every damn major paper there is.
CBS News:
The Washington Post even has video with their main story today.
They also have this Reuters story and
Crap. a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090300553.html”>this AP story and a number of prior stories, such as this and this and more.
That last:
Similarly see CNN, NY Times, LA Times, and every damn major paper there is.
CBS News:
Be happy, that you are not forced to listen to current German politicians, OCSteve. Walking violations of the narcotics law. Not even any entertaining demagogues available (even the demagogues lack talent these days). 🙁
MSNBC:
Etc.
This is a hell of a way to suppress news. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually bother to check the news before writing stuff like “And I keep wondering why the mainstream media hasn’t said a thing”?
MSNBC:
Etc.
This is a hell of a way to suppress news. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually bother to check the news before writing stuff like “And I keep wondering why the mainstream media hasn’t said a thing”?
I also found it highly ironic when McCain talked about “if you don’t like how government works, join it and fix it, or help people”. Seemed a contrast from the previous night with Rudy using sarcastic pronounciation to turn “community organizer” into a joke.
The contradiction of an anti-government political party has always been there, but this man and this speech seemed to do a worse-than-average job at resolving it.
I didn’t want to write about that. It’s still pretty close to the bone. But I have never thought that I had a monopoly on honor and decency and love for my country. I wish more prominent Republicans would stop assuming that they do.
What makes you think that McCain thinks he has “a monopoly on honor and decency and love for my country”? I don’t think that your convictions are less deeply-felt or settled than his. And, yet, despite your convictions, you acknowledge that those who have differing convictions may be honorable, decent, and love this country as much as you.
I agree that other Republicans have played the “Democrats aren’t patriots” card. McCain also has a biography that Obama can’t match, and so focusing on that biography can feel harsh. But saying “Obama’s love of country has not been tested in the same way McCain’s has” is not the same as saying that “Obama doesn’t love his country.” Heck, it doesn’t even exclude the possibility that Obama’s love of country has been tested in other ways that John McCain’s hasn’t.
von,
The class of Prominent Republicans has more than John McCain in its membership, why do you assume that Hilzoy only meant John McCain? Especially when the paragraph immediately preceeding this says:
And when I hear that in the midst of a convention full of people who act as though they own love of country, concern for the troops, duty, honor, and service
LJ, if Hilzoy excludes John McCain, Republican nominee,” from the “the class of Prominant Republicans,” she can certainly say that. In a post about John McCain on John McCain’s night, it’s hard not to think that she includes John McCain in that group. If she excludes McCain, it’s certainly worth noting.
In a post about John McCain on John McCain’s night
So, the title of the post refers to McCain and not Hilzoy? I’m sorry, but I think your apparently reflexive defending of McCain is affecting your judgement here. Also, you know as well as I do what is cutting close to the bone, and it’s very disingenuous, imo, to take the line that you are. Apologies for coming up to a line in the sand for the community here, but if you don’t see it, you may want to step back and reconsider.
von, when speakers at John McCain’s nominating convention, who have been selected, vetted, prepped, and ran their speeches by John McCain’s crew, stand up and question and denigrate the patriotism of Democrats, including Barak Obama, I think it’s fair enough to say that John McCain either shares their views, agrees with them, or isn’t bothered by them. And so it’s fair enough to attribute the views at John McCain’s convention to John McCain.
Speaking of anger, I’m really enjoying the emergence of AngryRussell in recent threads. You speak for more than yourself, my friend. Keep it up.
Jeffrey Feldman points out that the “9/11 Video Tribute” started out its “historical survey” with the Iranian hostage crisis. So they’re not only linking Iraq to 9/11, they’re pulling in Iran, too.
von, how has McCain’s love of country been tested in a way Obama’s Hasn’t?
BTW, the POW experience and time in service doesn’t count because he has already stated he didn’t feel love of his country until he became a POW.
Anyone else get the sense that if McCain had gotten up there and intoned seriously that the security of the United States meant that we had to go to war with Eastasia immediately, the crowd would have been all for it?
von: I wrote that the convention was full of people who seemed to assume that. (Sarah Palin, for one.) If McCain is not, in fact, in charge of his own convention, if he did not approve her speech, if he didn’t write or voluntarily pronounce the words he said about how in opposing the surge, Obama (and thus also you and I and the joint chiefs and everyone else) were putting something above love of country, then OK, it doesn’t apply to him.
In that case, I’m only angry, at him, about what was the much more serious charge to start with: that he claims to hate war and do whatever he can to prevent it, while in fact being downright eager to get us into wars, and that he lacks the insight into his own character to see that the noble restraint that he claims for himself, like the deliberation, judgment, and statesmanship he appealed to in the speech I quoted above, are traits he wholly lacks: nice words that make what is in fact a rush to war sound better.
Sujal: I didn’t take it as a criticism; just as an observation that seemed to me, on reflection, to be right, and made me think. For which I thank you.
In my last comment: “Obama (and thus also you and I and the joint chiefs and everyone else)” was meant to be: … everyone else who opposed the surge.
von: Even as a conservative, a longtime Republican, an ardent supporter of the military, and someone who greatly respects McCain’s story – if there was one overriding theme I saw in this weeks convention it’s the one that has hilzoy angry. Every night just reeked of holier-than-thou patriotism.
Yes, McCain stayed away from it – that’s how these things work. The VP and the surrogates do the dirty work, letting the candidate keep their hands clean.
Jeeze – I started to compile a list of these remarks but there are just so many.
And the one thing that bothered me most about last night – I’ve noticed that real heroes never ever get in your face and tell that they are a hero. If you push them on it, the response is typically something like “Ah shucks – I just did what anyone else in that situation would do…”
I still have the utmost respect for McCain and his life. But now I feel like he has prostituted those things I most admired about him grasping at this straw.
Ugh: Anyone else get the sense that if McCain had gotten up there and intoned seriously that the security of the United States meant that we had to go to war with Eastasia immediately, the crowd would have been all for it?
Nope. But the night before? If Palin had pointed up at the media booths and demanded that the crowd storm the booths and string them up – I think they might have.
But then came McCain, saying “I hate war.”
Sounds like the Emperor saying “I love democracy.”
Nope. But the night before?
Good point, I was thinking of the crowd the night before and McCain stepping up and saying we need to go to war.
If Palin had pointed up at the media booths and demanded that the crowd storm the booths and string them up – I think they might have.
Hatred is a powerful force.
You know, I really hate certain acronyms that are used on these here internets, especially the one for rolling on the floor laughing my ass off, but if there is an occasion for it, it might be this.
I agree that other Republicans have played the “Democrats aren’t patriots” card. McCain also has a biography that Obama can’t match, and so focusing on that biography can feel harsh. But saying “Obama’s love of country has not been tested in the same way McCain’s has” is not the same as saying that “Obama doesn’t love his country.”
Riiiight. So the slogan for his campaign is “Country First” because he wants to give the impression that both he and Obama value their country equally? I heard the choice of campaign slogan was a toss-up between “Country First” and “Member of the Senate”…
And because McCain never ever implied Obama’s position on the war implied a lack of patriotism either…
You’re either hopelessly naive or extremely disingenuous if you think McCain’s entire campaign has been premised on exploiting Obama’s perceived deficit of ‘Americaness’.
von: McCain also has a biography that Obama can’t match, and so focusing on that biography can feel harsh.
Yeah, he was a POW, you know. But he doesn’t talk about it much. Still. For five and a half years. A POW.
Speaking of pandering videos: did you catch the “McCain history” video where hundreds of Navy men die from a friendly fire accident, John McCain survives, and Fred Thompson intones “Maybe God had something more for him to do”? Did anybody but me think that was wildly insensitive to the hundreds dead? “Maybe God was using them as window-dressing.”
Well, he DID repeat his common and vile theme that Obama puts himself before his country. Kind of a textbook impugning of patriotism there.
homunq: and never forget, it’s Obama who thinks that he’s “blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need.”
Speaking of pandering videos: did you catch the “McCain history” video where hundreds of Navy men die from a friendly fire accident, John McCain survives, and Fred Thompson intones “Maybe God had something more for him to do”?
Wait, WHAT? I don’t understand.
Ooookayyy.
According to LJ at 8:21 a.m., I’m wrong to read Hilzoy as saying that McCain is one of her “prominent Republicans.”
According to LJ at 8:41 a.m., I am being “very digingenuous” to assert that “prominent Republicans” includes McCain.
According to Nate at 9:09 a.m., however, of course McCain is a “prominent Republican.” Contrary to LJ’s view, Nate thinks that “it’s fair enough [for Hilzoy] to attribute the views at John McCain’s convention to John McCain.”
And then according to Hilzoy, McCain is one of the “prominent Republicans” unless “he didn’t write or voluntarily pronounce the words he said about how in opposing the surge, Obama … were putting something above love of country, then OK, it doesn’t apply to him.” So only if I think that McCain is being controlled by some kind of Rovian voodoo doll and isn’t voluntarily saying the words he’s saying — or something like that — he’s off the hook.
I’m going to assume from this that I needn’t genuflect, as LJ demands, but that my original understanding of Hilzoy’s post is correct.
Now that I’ve cleared away some of the weeds and ridiculous piling-on, I’ll respond to Hilzoy’s substantive point in her comment …. in another post.
Von apparently thinks this is an example of straightforward advertising:
Sarah Palin resurrected an attack line of Dick Cheney’s, that aroused a standing ovation from the delegates, but no comment that I’ve seen:
“As Al Qaeda terrorists plan for catastrophic harm on America…he’s (Obama) worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”
So, we have the hatred, AND a guarantee that she’ll continue the fight for lawlessness. What is it again that they were all saluting?
von: nothing I said directly implied that I did think McCain was one of those prominent Republicans, so I think lj et al were fine to interpret it as they did. However, assuming as I do that McCain has some say over the tenor of the speeches at his convention, and disliking as I do arguments about how if only the czar knew…, I am prepared to go there.
McCain’s conduct throughout this campaign has destroyed the respect I used to have for him. I used to think of him as someone I disagreed with a lot, but respected a lot. Listening to him lie has changed that, as has listening to him paint himself as a man of restraint and concern for the troops, whom he has “kept faith with” not just by opposing better education plans for them etc., but by advocating a pointless war in which they, not he, suffer and die.
(Preemptive note: the word ‘pointless’ is key there. Obviously I am not a pacifist, and do not oppose all wars. But McCain lays claim to restraint and judgment and a reluctance to go to war when it’s not really necessary. I suspect he actually believes that. But we expect some modicum of self-knowledge from grown-ups, especially when they’re running for President.)
some of the weeds and ridiculous piling-on
3 people = piling on.
post entitled ‘Angry’ that specifically references “convention full of people” = “a post about John McCain on John McCain’s night”
I hope you can let us know whatever other equivalencies you plan on using in your next post so folks other than DaveC can understand it.
What is it again that they were all saluting?
It was kind of a weird salute too, with the arm straight out at the end and all.
Hilzoy, you were a bit less circumspect than that. You wrote that “I have never thought that I had a monopoly on honor and decency and love for my country. I wish more prominent Republicans would stop assuming that they do.”
I don’t see any assumption on the part of McCain — spoken or unspoken — that he has a monopoly on honor and decency and love for country. In fact, he said the opposite:
It’s true that McCain has said that Obama would rather lose a war than a political campaign. I didn’t think that comment reflected well on McCain, although claims that it’s beyond the pale are a little silly — arguments like this have been a feature of democracy since, well, Athens. And Democrats have made the same charge in return: think of claims that Republicans are employing jingoism or talking tough to win elections at the expense of the national interests.
Still, none of these comments by McCain leads to the conclusion that he (or Republicans) have a monopoly on patriotism — particularly when McCain’s actual speech was directly to the contrary.
Exactly. Even though Obama’s speech was more negative than Palin’s, his was grounded in truth about Republicans. Even thought, Palin’s was less negative her’s was full of blatant lies about Obama and Democrats.
The difference is obvious.
von: nothing I said directly implied that I did think McCain was one of those prominent Republicans, so I think lj et al were fine to interpret it as they did. However, assuming as I do that McCain has some say over the tenor of the speeches at his convention, and disliking as I do arguments about how if only the czar knew…, I am prepared to go there.
Huh? So LJ’s justified in calling me disingenous and demanding an apology on your behalf when, if fact, I had understood you correctly? That’s good for him, I guess, in a heads-you-win-tails-I-lose kinda way.
Von, inserting one paragraph that contradicts much of what his convention has actually said, especially the previous night, doesn’t get McCain off the hook. Did you also believe the bit about ending “partisan rancor”? At some point the myth of McCain has to yield to what the actual person is doing.
KCinDC, have you ever seen a political convention in which the party of the hour didn’t contend that it represented that genuine spirit of the country and its people? By either Democrats or Republicans?
I seem to be alone, here, but my view is that politics in a democracy is a negotiation over what it means to be a member of that democracy.
Of course patriotism is part of the debate. It has to be. But McCain has never said he has a monopoly of patriotism.
von: Still, none of these comments by McCain leads to the conclusion that he (or Republicans) have a monopoly on patriotism — particularly when McCain’s actual speech was directly to the contrary.
So you feel the other Republicans just got “off message” when they attacked the patriotism of Americans who vote for other parties – that McCain’s just got no control whatsoever over what prominent members of the party he leads say at their national convention?
I ask because it appears to me that you are exonerating McCain, as party leader, from any responsibility whatsoever in the concerted attacks by prominent Republicans on the patriotism of those who don’t intend to vote for them this November.
If McCain can bear no responsibility for that, it’s because McCain had no control over what was said, on stage at the RNC – not even the content of a speech written by his campaign team for his Vice President nominee to read. Would that be a fair statement of your view of McCain versus his party/his speechwriters?
von, Republicans have been claiming for years that they and they alone are the real true patriots. It’s been a promenent theme from the Joe McCarthy days on.
There have been Deomcrats who claim the moral high ground, claim to be the ony ones who actually care about doing anything real to serve the people of this country, but that claim is much more defensible than the R party’s claim to being the only realtrue patriots.
I really can’t think of a time when the Democratic party leadership has used claims of superior patriotism as a theme. Democrats have been playing defense on this in recent elections: climing to be just as patriotic, Obama never attacks McCain’s patriotism while insisting that his own be recognized. On the other hand McCAin and his surrogates have repeatledly tgried to paint Obama as unpatriotic.
No I realy son’t think t hat there is a way to rationalize it a way: the Rpeublican party is totally into marginalization and demonization. Hoaving no real ideas to offer hate the Democrats is their fall back message.
“Country First” is a fascist slogan.
“Country first” combined with “our country above others” is not just a slogan, it’s the heart of fascism.
McCain’s conduct throughout this campaign has destroyed the respect I used to have for him.
You and me both.
I’ve always held McCain in some regard as someone who was basically not in the tank with the rest of the “movement conservatives”. This week he’s shown himself to be perfectly willing to jump in the deep end if that’s what it will take to get him into the White House.
This election is going to be yet another chapter of the American Culture Wars. It didn’t have to be so, but it will be so.
Speaking as someone on the left side of the American mainstream, I can say that I have no interest or desire for a culture war. I can’t see anything good, or useful, or constructive coming out of it.
But here we are anyway. Culture war has been declared on me and people like me. Whether I want it or not, I’m in it. My only choice is whether I bend over and offer my @ss to be kicked, or whether I make folks like Palin et al work for it.
If you think that’s an unfair or inaccurate characterization of the situation, I have to ask where the hell you’ve been for the last 8 years.
IMO everything I value about this nation is in the process of being destroyed. Not just destroyed, but pissed away, carelessly and recklessly, and with contempt.
I, personally, have had a pretty comfortable and easy life, but people close to me, people I love, have made great sacrifices for this nation. Some in wars, some in other forms of service, some just to get here in the first place.
I won’t see that legacy trashed by the punks, pissants, and professional yahoos that populate the Republican party of our day.
McCain has lined himself up with them, in order to achieve his personal goal of being President of the United States. So, you know, I do, sincerely, respect his service to the country, and profoundly respect and admire his courage and suffering in Vietnam, but today is today. As far as I’m concerned, he’s sold his integrity out for his own personal ambition.
He doesn’t deserve the office.
Thanks –
in a heads-you-win-tails-I-lose kinda way.
Kinda like ignoring 99% of the convention and every other speaker and claiming that fragments of McCain’s speech absolve them of meaning. No wonder you use the word genuflect.
You try to reduce a post about the Anger [of Hilzoy] to being about ‘John McCain on John McCain’s night’. I express my opinion that is is unfair, and you come back with some bs about yup, yup, Hilzoy is totally excluding John McCain, isn’t that convenient. Then you try and invoke your reductio ad absurdum when hilzoy addresses you. Disingenuous doesn’t begin to scratch the surface of that.
There are some other issues here for those that have eyes to see them, but I’ll pass cause I don’t want you to feel so piled on.
McCain has never said he has a monopoly o[n] patriotism.
Well, that’s a clincher, isn’t it.
No one’s a racist unless they say “I don’t like colored people.” No one’s claiming they’re the only true patriots unless they say “Our party has a monopoly on patriotism.”
Von, please show just a little more respect for the intelligence of your fellow commenters. It takes a lot to anger Hilzoy. This isn’t a hissy fit, or a partisan display of faux outrage.
There is an ugly message coming from this convention — orchestrated by John McCain and the Republican Party he leads.
von: if lj demanded an apology from you, I missed it. I thought he was interpreting what I actually said correctly, but that I was willing to say to you what I had not said in the post, namely that I think John McCain acts as though he has a monopoly on patriotism and concern for the troops. LJ could not have said that, not being me.
Jes: “Yeah, he was a POW, you know. But he doesn’t talk about it much. Still. For five and a half years. A POW.”
Apparently, this still constitutes as big news. After the speech, Kelly O’Donnell — NBC’s McCain campaign correspondent — said McCain rarely speaks about his POW days. Amazing. Talk about losing one’s credibility.
hilzoy: “assuming as I do that McCain has some say over the tenor of the speeches at his convention”
Perhaps you have forgotten that the candidate doesn’t speak for the campaign.
There is an ugly message coming from this convention — orchestrated by John McCain and the Republican Party he leads.
Or that leads him. Either way.
Sarah Palin’s assertion that Barack Obama wants to “forfeit Iraq” adds a great deal of validity to hilzoy’s argument.
Moreover, implicit in “Country First,” it seems to me, is “No Dissent,” which would be a continuation of the Bush administration policy that you are unpatriotic — unAmerican? — if you question your government or, heaven forbid, the president.
I supported the Iraq war because I was convinced by the so-called “liberal” case for war. I am a young man, and in 2002 & 2003 I simply did not know what I was talking about.
Although I did support the Iraq war, I believe I can, in 2008, sincerely and accurately claim to hate war.
Hilzoy, I agree with your sentiments regarding McCain; and Obama’s judgment in 2002 is primarily what has drawn me to him. However, I don’t think that one’s support of the American invasion in 2003 disqualifies one forever from speaking about these matters.
I think part of the problem is the US has only 2 parties. If the Reps are patriotic, then the Dems can’t be. If the Dems are compassionate, then the Reps are heartless. If the Reps are financially responsible (I said IF), then the Dems are spendthrifts. If the Dems are tolerant then the Reps are intolerant. That’s the dynamic as I see it anyway.
Von, please show just a little more respect for the intelligence of your fellow commenters. It takes a lot to anger Hilzoy.
Hilzoy has been angry about the Republicans and McCain in nearly every post for almost the last year. Occasionally, she’d alternate being angry with Bush/McCain/the Republicans with being angry with Hillary or Hillary’s supporters.
Mind you, I’m not faulting her for it. And I’m not qualified at all to say whether it takes a lot or a little to make Hilzoy angry. I don’t know her.
Hilzoy, I confess I have no idea how to square your self-serving claim at 12:53 p.m. with what you wrote at 10:06 a.m. But if you can do it, fine — and there’s no need to show your work.
As for this “if lj demanded an apology from you, I missed it,” I’m sure you can review the thread at your leisure if you like. But it’s a pretty boring topic of debate.
Von,
Face it, the only one posting here who is angry is you. The piling on you are experiencing and the parsing of your phrases is not everyone expressing anger, but frustration at your lack of understanding.
The Democrats are loving and caring individuals. At their convention they didn’t bad mouth Republicans or claim that BusHitler and McCain are the same thing.
Republicans however are odious. The sooner you deal with that reality the better.
You have obviously been blinded, but fortunately for you many here can help you see the light.
I can’t believe that an intelligent person like you would actually believe that anything the Democrats said at their convention would be considered bad-mouthing the Republicans. The truth isn’t bad mouthing.
LJ, if you’ll confine yourself to what I wrote rather than what you’d like to argue about, you’ll see that the only claim I have made is that McCain did not say that he had a monopoly on patriotism, honor, etc. In fact, he said the opposite.
You might also consider my comment at 12:33 p.m., which directly undercuts your premise about what I’m arguing and/or believe.
Toml, if you are actually a liberal, I respectfully request that you stop helping.
TomL, I have seen the light!
Oops, I should have added the obvious for you Von.
Democrats are the keeper of Truth. Republicans are the keeper of Lies. That should help your understanding.
If you lack this basic understanding then there’s just no helping you.
Mahty persuasive, toml. You haz made me see tha lite!
And von is an honorable man.
Okay, I’m calling spoof.
von: “Occasionally, she’d alternate being angry with Bush/McCain/the Republicans with being angry with Hillary or Hillary’s supporters.”
Speaking as someone who was a strong Hillary supporter in the primaries, and, granted, I have a short memory, I can’t recall Hilzoy attacking Hillary or her supporters without merit.
Trying to speak objectively: Hillary and her campaign — thanks largely to Bill (and let’s not forget Mark Penn) — did a lot of good but also set themselves up for a lot of criticism, one reason the campaign never gained the momentum to put her over the top.
toml 1
toml 2
and here
Yeah, KC has it pegged, methinks.
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight.
80% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Unemployment is rising, the mortgage/financial crisis is a big deal, and the next President will have major responsibilities in extracting our troops from Iraq.
The McCain campaign’s response is, essentially: (a) all the bad stuff is the fault of baaad republicans, but I’m a good republican; and (b) Obama can’t be trusted.
Now, given that (a) is a pretty tough sell, in the last few days we’ve heard a lot of (b), from Palin, Giuliani, Rove and the rest of the republican spin machine. (How ’bout the Republican congressman from Georgia calling Obama “uppity”?)
And somewhere along the way, Patriotism with a capital “P” came into play. And true to form McCain came out with a great soundbite that Obama would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.
That’s just ugly. But it’s also a true statement of how the republicans campaign. Hit low, then “apologize” for other people “misunderstanding” the comment.
And somewhere along the way an esteemed Professor of Ethics and published author decided, like the democratic party candidate, that she’d had ENOUGH!
Me, too.
Von, take off the advocate hat for a minute. McCain may have never said that he had “a monopoly on patriotism, honor, etc.” but he has implied it and the party he now leads has most definitely said it. Your legal parsing might be sufficient for you to persuade yourself, but you’ve got a long way to go to persuade people who have been on the receiving end of the slurs of the righteousness of your position.
Gary, some of the stories you linked do refute Jes’s contention that police repression of nonviolent dissidents hasn’t been reported, but others, if anything, are examples of highly inadequate news coverage. I saw the NYT story you linked first and it gives a very different impression from Greenwald’s stories. In Greenwald’s account, the police have been going out of their way to intimidate peaceful protestors, breaking into homes and accusing innocent people of plotting violence. When one reads the NYT account, I would have thought that some demonstrators got violent and the police responded in kind and possibly in a few cases went too far themselves.
I know there were violent rioters–what is not clear if you read the NYT story is whether the police have been going far out of their way to mistreat peaceful protestors along with the violent ones. Assuming Greenwald is telling the truth, the NYT story is misleading.
Via Billmon:
Nope, no claim about a monopoly on patriotism, honor, etc. there. Certainly not.
von: interpreting my words = interpreting what I in fact said, without benefit of knowing my actual state of mind. LJ did that: “I wish more prominent Republicans would do X” does not imply “John McCain did not do X.”
I, however, am prepared to include McCain as one of those Republicans whom I criticized. LJ didn’t know that, not being me.
I am, of course, angry. My Constitution has been trashed. My government agencies have been staffed by people like Monica Goodling. My President took us into a needless war which has killed 4,154 American troops, 300+ coalition troops, and God alone knows how many Iraqis, as well as making millions of people refugees. Our standing in the world has plummeted. We are deeply in debt. Our economy has tanked. We have spent eight years denying the need for anything resembling an energy policy. Of course I’m angry.
And it just sort of brings it out when I hear speech after speech implying that Republicans are the ones who keep faith with the troops, the ones who know how to keep us safe, not to mention the great laugh line about their knowing how to preserve our freedoms.
So sue me.
“But McCain has never said he has a monopoly of patriotism.”
No, he leaves that to all the surrogates. Von, do you expect us to fall for that? Do you expect us to believe McCain should be relieved of responsibility for what his campaign, and the Republican leadership, and the Republican National Convention, and all its speakers, say and do, because he stands off and says some nice words, and leaves most of the dirty work to everyone else?
That’s what people mean when they suggest you’re being disingenuous. It’s just not a plausible line of argument you appear to be making. And if that’s not the argument you’re making — that McCain, the czar, has no knowledge of what everyone under is doing, and thus no responsibility — then I have absolutely no idea what argument you are making.
“Of course patriotism is part of the debate. It has to be.”
Oh? Why?
Is the Obama campaign making McCain’s patriotism part of the debate? Are the Democrats in general saying McCain doesn’t love America? Are the Obama campaign or Democrats in general saying that we’re more patriotic than Republicans? If so, please give us some pointers. If not, then how is what you just said there true?
I don’t question that McCain or Republicans in general love America. I don’t question their patriotism (though I do question much of what they think it requires, and the policies they believe flow from it).
Why, then, do so many Republicans, and the theme of Republican conventions and so many Republican politicians, over and over question my patriotism, and love of my country, and that of so many Democrats, both rank-and-file, and our politicians?
Why, my friend?
And von, to be clear: I don’t know who you think is asking you to genuflect, apologize, whatever. For my part, I don’t think I have the standing to ask you to do anything.
That said, while I don’t think there’s any reason for you to care what would please me, as far as I can tell all your comments for the last several months have been strained attempts to defend McCain, whatever he says, and however utterly indefensible they might be, to the point where I’m not sure what McCain could do that you would not try to find some way of explaining away. I have no idea why you think this is worth doing, especially since, putting on my mind-reading hat, I credit you with a lot more knowledge and common sense than some of these attempts display.
It makes me sad.
“As for this ‘if lj demanded an apology from you, I missed it,’ I’m sure you can review the thread at your leisure if you like.”
No: it’s your claim. Link to, and quote the specific words. Or don’t be credible. Your choice.
The only place LJ mentioned anyone apologizing was himself, here: “Apologies for coming up to a line in the sand for the community here, but if you don’t see it, you may want to step back and reconsider.”
Maybe in your haste — you have a consistent history over the years of apparently reading too fast, and misunderstanding people, and writing too fast, and not noticing when you’re being incoherent — you misread him. If so, you do owe him an apology now. It seems to me that you clearly don’t read people very well, out of haste.
Otherwise, if LJ demanded an apology, plase either point to it, or withdraw your claim that “So LJ’s justified in calling me […] demanding an apology on your behalf.”
Thanks.
(Incidentally, someone uncorked all the earlier attempts at posting my comments with the quotes about the Mipple-stipple protests from the spam queue that I never asked to be uncorked, since I simply was able to edit them into shorter comments. The result is that it appears that I knowing posted a bunch of repetitive comments, which everyone then had to wade through; it would be better to wait for me to specifically request that a specific comment be uncorked, please, than to do that again. Thanks muchly!)
“As for this ‘if lj demanded an apology from you, I missed it,’ I’m sure you can review the thread at your leisure if you like.”
No: it’s your claim. Link to, and quote the specific words. Or don’t be credible. Your choice.
The only place LJ mentioned anyone apologizing was himself, here: “Apologies for coming up to a line in the sand for the community here, but if you don’t see it, you may want to step back and reconsider.”
Maybe in your haste — you have a consistent history over the years of apparently reading too fast, and misunderstanding people, and writing too fast, and not noticing when you’re being incoherent — you misread him. If so, you do owe him an apology now. It seems to me that you clearly don’t read people very well, out of haste.
Otherwise, if LJ demanded an apology, plase either point to it, or withdraw your claim that “So LJ’s justified in calling me […] demanding an apology on your behalf.”
Thanks.
(Incidentally, someone uncorked all the earlier attempts at posting my comments with the quotes about the Mipple-stipple protests from the s p a m queue that I never asked to be uncorked, since I simply was able to edit them into shorter comments. The result is that it appears that I knowing posted a bunch of repetitive comments, which everyone then had to wade through; it would be better to wait for me to specifically request that a specific comment be uncorked, please, than to do that again. Thanks muchly!)
(Oh, for crissake’s, this comment was rejected as s p a m because I originally mentioned that word.)
It makes me sad.
I don’t want you to be sad, Hilzoy, so I’m going to offer a joke. I hope you haven’t already heard it (but you probably have, given your line of work).
What did the Buddah say to the hot dog vendor?
punch line below
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Make me one with everything.
Donald: “…but others, if anything, are examples of highly inadequate news coverage.”
I don’t disagree, but that’s an entirely different point and claim then the one made by Jes and MeDrew.
Note that I have no disagreement whatever with what Nell originally wrote.
But Jes went beyond commentary on the type of coverage, to claim: “It is most disturbing – and I say that with all sympathy for those who have been arrested, tear-gassed, threatened, etc – that this has not been on the mainstream news. If the Republican Party wanted to present themselves as a party under threat from terrorists, the mass arrests would be on the news….”
And they were. And MeDrewNotYou wrote: “And I keep wondering why the mainstream media hasn’t said a thing.”
Those claims are simply wildly false. That’s all.
Getting into critiques as to how the coverage should be much different and better is something I agree entirely with, but as a separate issue than saying that there was no mainstream reporting of mass arrests.
I appreciate the fact that the war is THE issue for so many citizens. And I can begin to understand how Hilzoy was so offended by those words (I think I understand even better than that from what I’ve read here, but I’m sure most of you think I still don’t get it, so I’m keeping an open mind in that regard).
But while the tenor of the convention was more confrontational, McCain was not. Von’s cite above was noticeable. The response to McCain’s “despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other” was FAR louder and resulted in a standing ovation. Obama’s “I love this country and so does John McCain” barely elicited a response (though Joe Biden did stand) until Obama reminded the crowd that democrats gave their blood for this country too. Then they stood.
Now, that to me doesn’t mean much except that the left takes the patriotism issue too personally. Waving the flag, chanting “USA” and all that stuff is good stuff no matter who is doing it. It may be that those on the left are more cognizant of our nation’s faults and thus have a more difficult time getting worked up to a full-throated roar. I’m certainly o.k. with that. But don’t knock those that do. (BTW, I’m ordering fifes so my daughters and I can contribute to the 4th of July festivities in our small town because it’s something I’ve always wanted to do). Calling the RNC flag waving fascist rankles me.
As for the speech, I haven’t watched a lot of McCain. I think I’m pretty cynical. Yet I thought he came across as sincere. He explained his “Country First” quite well and, while I can’t read the minds of those in attendance at the convention, it appeared that those supported his definition. I don’t see it as russell does (our country above all others). I took it as JFK’s “ask not” imperative. McCain certainly went out of his way to mention virtually all who contribute to society and called us up “to arms” to better ourselves. Nothing wrong with that.
And as for the “hate war” line, from what I know of McCain, he felt that our withdrawal from Vietnam was dishonorable and that the war could have been won. I’m sure that colors who he is today. Withdrawal in Iraq in anything less than a way that can be viewed as honorable and a win isn’t something he’s likely to support. I’m sure he felt that going to war was going to protect America. I don’t think being wrong on the war makes him a hypocrite on the issue, especially after what he went through.
Judged as a speech, it wasn’t that good. Obama is clearly a better orator. But I thought McCain, by employing a conversational style, communicated well and avoided a style that would have been a failure. And I thought it was an appropriate use of is POW story given how it lead to his urge for us to fight for a better country.
I didn’t at all feel that the Republicans “own” patriotism. YMMV. And I’m sure it does.
along the lines of hsh’s comment…
.
.
.
.
the Dalai Lama jubilantly opening an empty box: “Nothing! Just what I always wanted!”
Should we list all of the terrorists attacks that were committed or planned under a Democrat president?
I say it’s all Bush’s fault.
I also say why don’t we let the military personnel decide who they think cares about them.
Are they so ignorant that they can’t decide for themselves who really supports them?
I think not. I think most military personnel support Democrats because they trust Democrats to treat them better.
That’s right isn’t it?
bc: I don’t think you don’t get it — except insofar as none of us gets everything. Fwiw. I appreciate your willingness to engage with people you disagree with.
von:
John McCain, personally, in his acceptance speech, didn’t claim he has a monopoly on patriotism, this is true.
HOWEVER, at the rest of the Republican National Convention, a convention to appoint John McCain as the candidate of the Republican party, an event organized and run by John McCain’s campaign, many of the other speakers DID make that claim. Given that John McCain’s campaign organized and coordinated the events and speeches, and approved the speeches that would go on national TV, it’s fair to say John McCain has approved these opinions, even if he claims not to believe them personally. Sometimes, you have to judge the man by his actions, not his words in speeches.
So yes, John McCain either was or has become one of the “prominent Republicans” who is willing to declare anyone who disagrees with him as unpatriotic. Even if he said otherwise in one paragraph of his speech last night. That doesn’t outweigh the other days of the convention, or months of campaigning.
I believe you.
Obama’s surrogates need to keep driving these points home: “My Constitution has been trashed. My government agencies have been staffed by people like Monica Goodling. My President took us into a needless war which has killed 4,154 American troops, 300+ coalition troops, and God alone knows how many Iraqis, as well as making millions of people refugees. Our standing in the world has plummeted. We are deeply in debt. Our economy has tanked. We have spent eight years denying the need for anything resembling an energy policy.”
—
“Of course patriotism is part of the debate. It has to be.”
What always troubles me about that debate is, if you don’t subscribe to the right’s arbitrary definition of patriotism, you are branded as unpatriotic.
—
Good joke, hairshirt.
bc: “Calling the RNC flag waving fascist rankles me.”
All of that flag-waving is part and parcel with running/attending/celebrating a convention.
Loved the balloon drop, BTW, and seeing MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell literally buried in them.
And toml gives the “game” away with his Democrat president.
Toml–
The key to effective satire is not to write what Republicans think Democrats would say–it’s to write something close to what Democrats really would say, with an added little twist that is absurd and funny. You’re doing the Republican imitation thing, which is why it’s so lame.
The other thing I’d say is to stick to your strengths, and obviously, writing effective satire isn’t one of them. It’s not mine either, but I at least know it.
Re: Hating war and voting for war
If John McCain regarded the US as having two choices, either fight a war in another land or fight a war at home, then his vote was not for war but chosing the geography. If an enemy declares war on you, it’s not as if you can decline the invitation.
The concern with McCain should be with the fact that he accepted questionable evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda at face value. He also didn’t seem to be concerned about the just war question. If his military credentials are to be seen as an asset, he should have performed much better in these areas.
No: it’s your claim. Link to, and quote the specific words. Or don’t be credible. Your choice.
The only place LJ mentioned anyone apologizing was himself, here: “Apologies for coming up to a line in the sand for the community here, but if you don’t see it, you may want to step back and reconsider.”
Maybe in your haste — you have a consistent history over the years of apparently reading too fast, and misunderstanding people, and writing too fast, and not noticing when you’re being incoherent — you misread him. If so, you do owe him an apology now. It seems to me that you clearly don’t read people very well, out of haste.
Gary, perhaps it was you who read LJ too quickly, since you seemed to have missed whom LJ invoked in calling me “very disingenuous” to argue that McCain didn’t claim to have a monopoly on patriotism. LJ’s complete quote was the following:
Also, you know as well as I do what is cutting close to the bone, and it’s very disingenuous, imo, to take the line that you are. Apologies for coming up to a line in the sand for the community here, but if you don’t see it, you may want to step back and reconsider.
That’s pretty close to dropping a rhetorical bomb on the conversation, isn’t it? And the request to reconsider would lead, assuming I didn’t want to “be very disingenuous” in light of Andrew’s memory, to an apology. At least, if LJ’s concerns were valid, I would hope that reconsideration would it lead to an apology.
I assume you get this now, Gary. If you want me to spell it out — explain what LJ means when he refers to “what is cutting close to the bone” — I’ll do it. I really don’t think it should be necessary, though. So I’d prefer to leave it at the following: I don’t appreciate LJ’s casual deployment of an emotional nuke.
Hilzoy, I’ve repeatedly criticized McCain. I criticized him again on this very thread. I repeatedly criticized Bush as well.
It is true that I don’t think that you are applying the same standard to McCain that you apply to your candidate, or the same standard to Rs as you apply to Ds. I also think that Ds are prone to view legitimate attacks on D policies as illegitimate assaults on D patriotism. Undoubtably, some of this is due to the Rovian bullsh-t that has pervaded Republican strategy. (You will recall that McCain was among Rove’s first victims, in ’00.)
At the end of the day, both McCain and Obama are claiming to be the better patriot in the race. I sincerely don’t know if you recognize this or not. But neither is claiming to have a monopoly on patriotism.
“Waving the flag, chanting ‘USA’ and all that stuff is good stuff no matter who is doing it.”
Why?
I’d rather love my country than announce to everyone as loud as I can how much I love my country.
Why is chanting and waving flags inherently “good stuff,” rather than self-praise?
Would you respect me more if I wrote lots of posts about how “I’m #1! I’m #1! I’m #1!” or “I’m really smart and brave and great!” over and over, completely seriously?
If not, why should I respect others who do it, and why should I respect the Republicans for doing it, and why should I respect the Democrats if we were louder about how much we love America?
And what if we don’t think America is #1 in all things, in fact, but simply believe that America should try to be the best America it could be? Would that be less patriotic and less admirable?
Gary,
There’s a big difference between saying “we’re number one” than “I’m number one.”
hairshirthedonist: … Make me one with everything.
The follow up joke: The Buddhist monk overpays for his hot dog. He asks the vendor, “what about change?” The vendor replies, “change must come from within.”
Agreed.
There’s a big difference between saying “we’re number one” than “I’m number one.”
That difference is not at all clear to me. Can you explain it?
It’s true that McCain has said that Obama would rather lose a war than a political campaign. I didn’t think that comment reflected well on McCain, although claims that it’s beyond the pale are a little silly…
He said that his opponent would choose his own political career over his country’s victory in a war. I still don’t understand how that isn’t an accusation of disloyalty. It’s not an accusation of *treason* since that would require an overt act, but it’s certainly questioning his patriotism.
If you can’t look at that statement and admit that McCain has questioned Obama’s patriotism, Id advise you to stop following the election news completely, since you will already know what everything means prior to actually reading it.
arguments like this have been a feature of democracy since, well, Athens.
So has corruption. And we may never be able to eradicate it. But few would be so bold as to use this as an argument *in favor* of corruption. “So our guy took some bribes- hey, bribing public officials is as old as the Pyramids!”
And Democrats have made the same charge in return
Sure, I think Bush started the Iraq war for domestic political consumption rather than the existence of any external threat. But they didn’t put me on the stage in Denver to say so, and that says something about Obama. That McCain put people on stage to question Obama’s patriotism says something about John McCain. Specifically, that he’s willing to question his opponent’s patriotism in order to win the election.
At the end of the day, both McCain and Obama are claiming to be the better patriot in the race. I sincerely don’t know if you recognize this or not.
I sincerely don’t know if you can back that up with a quote from Obama or not.
“There’s a big difference between saying ‘we’re number one’ than ‘I’m number one.'”
It’s about more people. Other than that?
Von: “And the request to reconsider would lead, assuming I didn’t want to ‘be very disingenuous’ in light of Andrew’s memory, to an apology”
Ah. So LJ did not, in fact, “demand” an apology from you. You simply assert that he did, and stand by the claim, because you believe that if you reconsidered as requested, that somehow that implies a demand he didn’t make.
If that isn’t it, please feel free to explain again, though I imagine you’ll decline.
Well. We read things differently, and come to different conclusions of what may be reasonably inferred and claimed as to what a “demand” is. We appear to have a different understanding of what the word “demand” means.
“But neither is claiming to have a monopoly on patriotism.”
And McCain has no responsibility for the Republican convention, or other Republicans, and there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, particularly their elected leadership and representatives, and specifically the speakers at their conventions, as to who tends to claim a monopoly on patriotism.
And you expect us to buy that as a credible claim?
“At the end of the day, both McCain and Obama are claiming to be the better patriot in the race. I sincerely don’t know if you recognize this or not. But neither is claiming to have a monopoly on patriotism.”
Von, I think you’ll remember a quote along the lines of “It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.”
Obama hasn’t questioned McCain’s patriotism, he doesn’t seem to doubt that. He’s made that clear. Obama doubts McCain’s grasp of what good policy is. He’s made that clear.
There’s a huge difference between the way they both criticize each other. McCain continually questions Obama’s motives. His intentions. And it’s despicable. Obama questions McCain’s understanding. His policy.
McCain accuses Obama of being unpatriotic. Obama accuses McCain of being a bad candidate for Presidency. I thought that difference would be obvious…
bc: I don’t see it as russell does (our country above all others). I took it as JFK’s “ask not” imperative.
Paying taxes is something you do for your country. Clamoring for tax cuts is something you ask your country to do for you.
Putting “country first” in the JFK sense is a fine thing. But let’s see John McCain tell that to the Grover Norquist wing of the GOP. Until then, McCain’s call to “sacrifice” will be hard to interpret as anything but militarism.
I don’t know about you, bc, but I consider it something of a “sacrifice” to pay taxes. It’s a convenient form of sacrifice — but an economically efficient one. It would be economically inefficient for me (or most people) to put country first by giving it my time, for I am better at doing the work I know how to do, than I am at doing most kinds of work my country needs done. The economic concept of comparative advantage is what I’m talking about. It’s a concept no doubt familiar to those Republicans who are “well-versed in economics”. But they’re the ones clamoring for tax cuts, mostly for themselves.
To people like that, I say: don’t shout “country first” and “cut my taxes” at the same time. It makes you look like a hypocrite at best.
–TP
If you can’t look at that statement and admit that McCain has questioned Obama’s patriotism, Id advise you to stop following the election news completely, since you will already know what everything means prior to actually reading it.
Carleton, of course McCain has questioned whether Obama has the country’s interests at heart as much as McCain does, i.e., questioned his patriotism. And Obama has done the same in return to McCain, i.e., questioned McCain’s patriotism. As noted, however, I thought this particular statement by McCain didn’t reflect well on McCain. It certainly didn’t address Obama’s argument against the surge — it was just a cheap shot against Obama the man.
As for the “feature of democracry” argument: I truly meant “feature.” The fact that elections in part contest the meaning of patriotism is a feature, not a bug. America is constantly redefining what it means to be a patriot. An American from the 1850s would be “unAmerican” today and hold a bunch of unAmerican attitudes and beliefs.
Gary @ 3:52 p.m., will you please stop being obtuse on this one?
Al: There’s a big difference between saying “we’re number one” than “I’m number one.”
Turbulence: That difference is not at all clear to me. Can you explain it?
I’d be interested in hearing about the difference too. Other than that “we’re number one” is scarier, I don’t see it.
von: I’d be fascinated to see backup for this: “And Obama has done the same in return to McCain, i.e., questioned McCain’s patriotism.” I am genuinely unaware of any such claim by Obama.
von, I’m not sure you appreciate this, but at least some people here read “questioning Obama’s patriotism” as “suggesting that Obama would kill millions of Americans, or at least stand back and do nothing if bin Ladin tried”. After all, when you say that Obama values winning an election (i.e., gaining power) above winning wars, you are also saying that Obama would happily cause American to lose a war in exchange for more power. Since during the formative years for most voters, losing a war meant national annihilation (i.e., nuclear attack during the cold war), this claim is understood as saying that Obama would gladly kill all Americans in order to gain more power.
That is a really vile thing to say.
Now, of course, McCain has never said “Obama would gladly kill all of us to get more power”, but the implication hangs heavy in what he has said.
The word “patriot” can mean many things to many people, but losing a war generally involves lots of civilians dying. Especially to people who lived through the cold war.
Of course patriotism is part of the debate. It has to be. But McCain has never said he has a monopoly of patriotism.
But if I understand your position, it would be Ok if he did. But he didn’t. Is that right?
And, if Obama isn’t a patriot (and does a patriot put his own political ambition ahead of his country’s victory in war?), does not McCain have a monopoly on patriotism among the current presidental candidates? Does he actually have to say those exact words?
And Im still waiting for a quote from Obama questioning McCain’s patriotism- that doesn’t fit it with anything I’ve heard Obama say. If anything, my recollection is that Obama has gone out of his way to avoid such an attack (if perhaps only for practical reasons).
Now, that to me doesn’t mean much except that the left takes the patriotism issue too personally.
bc, I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
I wish it were as simple as all of us lefties just being too thin-skinned, but I don’t think it is.
When we take it personally, I think it’s because it’s meant personally.
I’m not a mind-reader, so I could be wrong, but it’s normally not all that hard to read other folks’ intent.
We’re not making it up. It’s really there.
Thanks –
Sarah Palin’s assertion that Barack Obama wants to “forfeit Iraq” adds a great deal of validity to hilzoy’s argument.
Moreover, implicit in “Country First,” it seems to me, is “No Dissent,” which would be a continuation of the Bush administration policy that you are unpatriotic — unAmerican? — if you question your government or, heaven forbid, the president.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo
This reminds me of the line Michael J Fox had in “An American President”.
Martin Sheen: “The President doesn’t answer to you Louis.”
Michael J Fox: “Oh, yes he does A.J. I’m a citizen, this is my President. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders it’s our responsibility!”
The attitude of the R’s in general & Bush’s administration specifically, has been just that. After 9/11, if you don’t agree with them, you are against them and part of the problem. They will take away specific civil rights and go without warrents to tap your phone, etc.
Talk about unpatriotic.
But if I understand your position, it would be Ok if he did. But he didn’t. Is that right?
I think it would be unbelievably foolish if he did. It would certainly cause me not to vote for him. But it wouldn’t be outside the bounds of American discourse. Certainly, The Republican party of the 1850s claimed, perhaps rightly, to have a monopoly on patriotism.
To clarify my last comment, debating over whether your opponent is patriotic could mean anything, but suggesting that your opponent is disloyal or might side with the enemy seeking to destroy us all is a whole different matter. So I have three quick questions for von:
1. Do you think that is a plausible reading of McCain’s comments that Obama would rather lose a war than win an election? I.e., do you think that at least some of the electorate will interpret those comments in that manner?
2. Do you think it is legitimate for one candidate to suggest that their opponent is a traitor who would collude with our enemies in destroying us provided the price was right?
3. Do you think Obama has made any such imputations about McCain?
“And Obama has done the same in return to McCain, i.e., questioned McCain’s patriotism.”
Again, I call BS. As Carleton said, show us the evidence.
von: “I also think that Ds are prone to view legitimate attacks on D policies as illegitimate assaults on D patriotism.”
Was Palin’s assertion that Obama wants to “forfeit Iraq” a legitimate attack?
Jason Williams: “I think you’ll remember a quote along the lines of “It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.”
I took that as Obama questioning McCain’s judgement, which seems like a legitimate, sound and fair line of attack.
Just as he did with Hillary, Obama — not necessarily his campaign — tries to stay away from personal attacks and even goes so far as to defuse them; for example, his declaration earlier in the week that Palin’s family was off limits.
BTW, was anyone else having Howard Dean flashbacks at the end of McCain’s speech when every other word coming out of his mouth was “fight?”
von:
Other have asked you to provide an example. Please do so, or retract this.
There is also a clear difference between questioning another’s patriotism and contesting the meaning of patriotism.
One is a personal, culture-war low blow.
The other is, as you say, politics.
Provide an example of Obama questioning McCain’s patriotism, please.
Somehow I blitzed the quote of von saying that Obama had questioned McCain’s patriotism, but since I repeated the request at the end, I hope the comment’s meaning is clear.
Hilzoy:
von: I’d be fascinated to see backup for this: “And Obama has done the same in return to McCain, i.e., questioned McCain’s patriotism.” I am genuinely unaware of any such claim by Obama.
So McCain doesn’t want to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11? He doesn’t want to “take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights”? He instead wants pursue a war that’s already lost, killing thousands of Americans in the process.
That’s not very patriotic. Heck, from a certain perspective, it’s downright treasonous.
From the speech written by John McCain’s campaign team, for John McCain’s nominee for VP to deliver, whoever that was:
Now, to me, Von, that looks like McCain claiming he has a monopoly on patriotism. It looks like that to me because this is the speech that McCain’s team wrote, that McCain approved, for McCain’s VP nominee to deliver.
So presumably, when you say “I think it would be unbelievably foolish if he did. It would certainly cause me not to vote for him.” you mean that if McCain had delivered that self-aggrandizing speech himself, you wouldn’t vote for him: because he had it written for someone else to deliver, it’s OK.
von,
so you knew what I was getting at, and decided to take advantage of that to score points. That is disingenuous. You find a contradiction between me and Nate and you ask hilzoy to explain it. More disingenuousness. You claim to have no idea what makes hilzoy angry or even anything about her and state ‘I don’t know her.’ Heaping portions of disingenuousness. You don’t seem to like that word. Fine, stop exemplifying it.
The request to reconsider doesn’t demand an apology. Initially, it just requires that you step back. Or just give an acknowledgement that you understand what I am getting at and you disagree. If you had done that, you would have gotten an apology from me for being oversensitive. However, the more you go on, failing to acknowledge the context of my comment that you understood perfectly well, the more disingenuous you become.
At least, if LJ’s concerns were valid, I would hope that reconsideration would it lead to an apology.
But if my concerns are valid, you are using something that we don’t want to talk about to try and defend McCain. I don’t appreciate it. I think it is bullshit. But if my concerns weren’t valid earlier, you have made them valid. I don’t know if you have gone so far in parsing every claim against McCain that you have forgotten what the community has experienced or if you just don’t give a shit and at this point, they are functionally equivalent.
But even if my concerns are not valid, you can’t acknowledge them at all because that would mean acknowledging the possibility that Hilzoy’s post comes from a different place than others. Not that I know Hilzoy’s mind, but simply acknowledging the possibility weakens your line of attack. So you traipse around with your parsing and your feigned ignorance until you get called on the apology bit, and reveal that you understood my remark, and stand triumphant over the wreckage of thread. I appreciate Gary stepping in (more than he realizes) and I appreciate Hilzoy who, unlike you, draws a clear distinction between what I wrote and what she wrote and the actual words of my statement, but the crux of the matter to me is not what I may or may not have demanded, it is that you knew exactly what I was getting at and you only invoke it at the end to try and win an parsing argument with Hilzoy and Gary. What’s the word for that?
You take this right from the Rovian playbook, pushing the buttons and then sitting back and saying ‘why are you getting so upset?’. And since you view two commenters as a “ridiculous piling on“, you probably feel justified in doing this.
When this started out, I was embarrassed. But as you went on and on, I got more and more upset. And finding out that you knew what I was getting at and looking back to see you suggest that I was going for a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation, leaves me livid.
I said, “If you don’t see it, you may want to step back and reconsider”
But you did see it, and you pretended like you didn’t. That says it all. And that’s all I am going to say in this thread. Good night.
Was Palin’s assertion that Obama wants to “forfeit Iraq” a legitimate attack?
Was Obama’s assertion that McCain doesn’t want to “finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11” or “take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights” legitimate attacks?
For my part, the way I have seen the patriotism stuff in this election is as follows: Obama routinely calls John McCain a hero, and refuses to question his service or his patriotism. He has always tried to make the campaign abut McCain’s positions, his judgment, his grasp of the issues, etc., but never about his love of huis country, or his desire to do what’s right. It would astonish me if some surrogate somewhere had not said something worse, but in the cases I remember, they were shut down very quickly by the campaign.
John McCain, by contrast, has said that Obama would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. He has said that Obama puts ambition ahead of winning a war. I regard the idea that this is not questioning his patriotism as basically indefensible. McCain has also run a convention in which the patriotism of Democrats and liberals was routinely questioned. His campaign has forwarded, and never disavowed, Lieberman’s claim that Obama did not always put country first. Etc., etc., etc.
I see two interpretations of this. (1) My take is basically accurate. (2) It is not.
If (1) is true, then the idea that there’s any sort of equivalence here is wrong. One candidate is willing to impugn the other’s patriotism; the other is not. In this case, the idea of saying there’s some sort of moral equivalence is wrong.
If (2) is right, then maybe I have a bad memory, or maybe I’m blinded by partisanship. If I am blinded by partisanship, I would genuinely like to know.
So I would ask von, or anyone else, to provide an example of Obama questioning McCain;s patriotism. If he can’t, I’d suggest considering the possibility that he’s treating the two sides with different standards, or assuming that there must be some sort of moral equivalence between them. From where I sit, there is not.
But I’m open to evidence that I’m wrong. I’d just like to see it.
My policies are better for America than my opponents policies, thus I am the better patriot and my opponent’s patriotism is questioned because he hasn’t adopted my policies.
Gosh von, with your definition of an attack on patriotism, any substantive critique of an opponent’s policy would become a critique on their motivations. Obama thinks McCain is wrong. McCain’s shoddy policies would have lots of bad effects for lots of innocent people. That does not equal an attack on patriotism.
von: in view of the fact that when Obama said that if we knew where in Pakistan bin Laden was and the Pak. government would not act, he would, and McCain made a very big deal out of what a reckless ideea this was, and how it just showed Obama’s inexperience, I don’t see why.
I mean, if he himself was prepared to act in those circumstances, it would be odd to criticize Obama for being prepared to. If not, then I think it’s right to say that McCain was not prepared to take out bin Laden if we have him in our sights — at least, if he’s in Pakistan, where by all accounts he is.
Moreover, and crucially, that is not impugning McCain’s patriotism.
“Gary @ 3:52 p.m., will you please stop being obtuse on this one?”
Von, if someone ever made this request of you, how helpful would you find it?
Since you’re capable of figuring that out for yourself, either you’re accusing me of responding in bad faith, or… just how am I to interpret this sort of response?
Do you generally find suggestions like “quit being stupid!” welcome and appropriate and helpful? No? Then why engage in them?
I’ll try to do you the favor of not hauling out similar inanity in return; I don’t believe I ever have.
“And Obama has done the same in return to McCain, i.e., questioned McCain’s patriotism.”
Cite, please, to specific quotes from Obama. Thanks.
But I’m open to evidence that I’m wrong. I’d just like to see it.
Did you not see my post at 4:20 p.m., or do you not agree that it’s an attack on McCain’s patriotism?
It sure would be nice if von would be willing to cut LJ as much slack for what he didn’t say as he is willing to cut John McCain for what he didn’t say. More’s the pity.
I just read LJ’s post. My first response is, what the fuck? My second, third and fourth responses can’t be printed. So I’m going to ignore it.
von: guessing you didn’t see my 4:32.
“That’s not very patriotic. Heck, from a certain perspective, it’s downright treasonous.”
You’re saying this. What you’re doing is taking a difference of opinion about policy — in this case on Afghanistan — and bizarrely claiming that apparently any policy disagreement implies a claim that the other person’s stance is unpatriotic, and, in fact, even downright treasonous.
This is, of course, insane.
I could as logically claim that since you are disagreeing with me, you obviously feel that I’m so wrong that I deserve to be killed, and therefore you have threatened to murder me.
It makes as much sense as what you’re saying here.
But, in other words, that’s the best you can do when asked for a quote from Obama in which he accuses McCain of not being patriotic.
God, I hope you make better arguments in court than this.
von: in view of the fact that when Obama said that if we knew where in Pakistan bin Laden was and the Pak. government would not act, he would, and McCain made a very big deal out of what a reckless ideea this was, and how it just showed Obama’s inexperience, I don’t see why.
Hilzoy, that’s not the quote from Obama I cited.
von: guessing you didn’t see my 4:32.
I did. You didn’t address the Obama quote I offered; you addressed a different from.
Turbulence: “I’m not sure you appreciate this, but at least some people here read ‘questioning Obama’s patriotism’ as ‘suggesting that Obama would kill millions of Americans, or at least stand back and do nothing if bin Ladin tried’. After all, when you say that Obama values winning an election (i.e., gaining power) above winning wars, you are also saying that Obama would happily cause American to lose a war in exchange for more power.”
I may be wrong, but this GE seems to be much more of a war over words than the previous two — and a great deal of the fighting involves interpreting who meant what.
I never thought McCain was “suggesting that Obama would kill millions of Americans, or at least stand back and do nothing if bin Ladin tried” when he said Obama would rather win an election than a war.
Rather, I thought that was McCain’s strongest expression to date — in a rather clumsy and inappropriate way — that he knows what’s best regarding Iraq (i.e. “I know how to win wars”) and Obama doesn’t.
McCain doesn’t strike me as very sophisticated and I think he feels this style of attack is the best way to counter Obama’s argument that he has better judgement since he was against the war in the first place.
von: Was Obama’s assertion that McCain doesn’t want to “finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11” or “take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights” legitimate attacks?
What Obama actually said was: “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.”
McCain, via Palin’s acceptance speech, claims to have a monopoly on patriotism – he’s “the candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.”
Obama says outright he disagrees with McCain’s support of the Bush administration’s decision to focus on Iraq, not Afghanistan. Isn’t that a legitimate thing to say? Are you yourself such an ardent supporter of Bush’s decision to make war on Iraq and ignore Afghanistan that you can’t stand to see anyone criticise it?
To be really clear about it: there are cases in which I would not be willing to take bin Laden out if I had him in my sights. E.g., if it would start a thermonuclear war. People can disagree about that and still want what’s best for the country. Apparently, McCain thinks that sending special forces into Pakistan is a bridge too far. Obama does not. They disagree. Obama points it out. That’s not questioning patriotism.
But to be willing to sacrifice the country’s interests for the sake of your own ambitions — which is what McCain has said about Obama — is not to be a patriot.
Obama has made no such assertion. You are making that up. Wow.
“McCain doesn’t want to” are your words. You don’t get to make up words and attribute them them to other people as a legitimate form of argument, Von.
And you know that. That, or you’ve been lawyering too long.
You’re saying this. What you’re doing is taking a difference of opinion about policy — in this case on Afghanistan — and bizarrely claiming that apparently any policy disagreement implies a claim that the other person’s stance is unpatriotic, and, in fact, even downright treasonous.
No, Gary. Not every (or even most) policy differences. Obama’s claim was: “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.”
Is that substantively different from the argument of those in Team McCain that Obama wants to “forfeit Iraq” — identified in this very thread as an attack on Obama’s patriotism?
Apparently, McCain thinks that sending special forces into Pakistan is a bridge too far. Obama does not. They disagree. Obama points it out. That’s not questioning patriotism.
Hilzoy, you’re again dodging the Obama quote.
bedtime: I didn’t take McCain to be suggesting that Obama would countenance the deaths of millions for the sake of his own ambitions. I did, however, take him to be suggesting both that if more people would die as our position in Iraq deteriorated, that would be OK with Obama if it served his ambitions, and also that any damage to our national interests that might follow the loss of a war would be OK with Obama, if it served his ambitions.
“McCain doesn’t want to” are your words. You don’t get to make up words and attribute them them to other people as a legitimate form of argument, Von.
Gary, I didn’t make up Obama saying: “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan ….”
Gary: You caught me in an exaggeration, sorry for coming across as oblivious to the stories that are out there. I think it would have been more accurate for me to say that I think that the arrests etc. aren’t receiving the coverage I think they warrant, ie. front page of the NYT, huge headlines on CNN, stuff like that.
Again, Hilzoy and Gary, the relevant Obama quote is:
von, help me out here: Are we supposed to judge people only on actual words that they actually spoke, or not? Because your position is shifting with the wind here.
von: you are aware that McCain actually said that we could “muddle through” in Afghanistan?
cite
Phil, here’s the Obama quote again for you; I believe it’s from his acceptance speech:
” Not every (or even most) policy differences. Obama’s claim was: ‘When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.'”
Fine; you’re not claiming that any policy difference is an accusation of treason and lack of patriotism; you’re simply claiming that that policy difference is such.
That’s indefensible.
It is, by this point, if not long before, difficult to regard your stances on McCain and these arguments as being made in good faith; it seems that you may feel similarly in turn. I don’t think there’s much left to continue with here, alas.
“Hilzoy, you’re again dodging the Obama quote.”
The one you’re making up?
I’ll answer the question you put to Hilzoy here: “Did you not see my post at 4:20 p.m., or do you not agree that it’s an attack on McCain’s patriotism?”
Me, I absolutely do not agree that it’s an attack on McCain’s patriotism.
And thus we probably have little useful left to say here to each other. Let’s agree to disagree before it turns unpleasant. Let’s wish each other enjoyment of what we see as each other’s Kool-Aid.
“Your efforts to win the war are misguided and will not succeed” is different from “You want us to lose the war so that your political career will benefit.” Obama is saying the former; McCain is saying the latter.
von quotes the following as supposed example of Obama attacking McCain’s patriotism:
“When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.”
Of course, von doesn’t mention how that section of the speech concluded:
“These are the policies I will pursue. And in 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 patriotism.
“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. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.
“So I’ve got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.”
The full quote (again) for the interested:
For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.
von: you are aware that McCain actually said that we could “muddle through” in Afghanistan?
Yes, Hilzoy, which Obama then lied about in the following quote (which you seemed determined to ignore):
I prefer patriotism with no flag involved. The only flagwaving I approve of is the Swiss sport and flag semaphore.
I also think that the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance is highly infelicitous. Flag first and country more or less as an afterthought? (Should be “I pledge my allegiance to the republic this flag stands for” or something like that)
Former German president Heinemann on the question, whether he loved his country: “I love my wife”. In the US that answer would be political suicide, in my view it was perfect.
“Gary, I didn’t make up Obama saying: “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan ….””
No, you made up the part where you assert about “Obama’s assertion that McCain doesn’t want to….”
You made that up out of whole cloth, and then demand everyone respond to it as if Obama said it, when he said no such thing whatever.
The best interpretation of this I can make is that you are so blindly for McCain that you can’t tell the difference between your own imagination and what someone actually said. Seems to me I’ve seen you do this a number of times before, but, again, that we’ll be something we surely have to agree to disagree about. In your view, you’re making a logical, fair, perfectly defensible, extrapolation, and in my view you are hallucinating, at best.
Oh, well.
I’ll still be happy to buy you a beer, if I can afford it, whenever we meet. But, wow, we view lots of political things differently.
Because if you are aware of that, then I don’t get this at all. Obama notes: (a) a quote from McCain, made in 2003, and says that at the time, he disagreed, and thought we should put more troops in Afghanistan to finish the job.
This is not impugning McCain’s patriotism. It is impugning his judgment. If we had, in fact, been able to muddle through as McCain suggested, McCain would have been right.
McCain also called Obama reckless for wanting to go after bin Laden in Pakistan if the Pakistani government wouldn’t and we knew where he was. Obama points this out, and says that he is willing to go there. On this, see my 4:42.
What part of the quote am i not responding to? And how is that quote impugning Obama’s patriotism?
The only way I can understand that is to think: maybe von thinks that anyone who is not willing to finish the job against al Qaeda and/or take out bin Laden when we have him in our sights is, in virtue of that fact, unpatriotic. So if Obama says so, then he’s impugning McCain’s patriotism.
But I just think that’s wrong about patriotism. And besides, given that Obama was sticking to things McCain actually said, if I were to grant, for some reason, that it was a good understanding of patriotism, then it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t conclude that McCain is in fact not patriotic.
I do not conclude that, but that’s because I do not accept the assumption that what Obama said about McCain is equivalent to saying he’s not a patriot.
No, you made up the part where you assert about “Obama’s assertion that McCain doesn’t want to….”
I’ll diagram Obama’s assertion so that you can at least see what I’m seeing.
Amen rea. Or do I say amen Obama?
von: what’s the lie? And, once again, what is the part that constitutes impugning McCain’s patriotism?
I may be dense, but I do not see that at all.
Phil, here’s the Obama quote again for you
Thanks, von! As it happens, I’ve been reading the English language now — my native language — for some 35 years. But I still seem to be missing the portion of the quote that begins “McCain doesn’t want to . . . ,” which is what you, at 4:31pm, claimed Obama said. Can you find that portion for me?
And I see nothing there but a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion about policy, with nothing untoward implied whatsoever. I see no grounds whatever for any claim of any implication of lack of patriotism by John McCain there. None whatever.
The form is “when John McCain was for X, I was for Y.” What on earth is wrong with that?
I have to see you as either blind to understanding the meaning of words, out of bias towards McCain, or that you are so used to making lawyerly arguments that you’ve lost the concept of what truth is, or worse. I prefer the first interpretation as the least unflattering.
I suppose it’s a useful trait in a professional argue-er to become convinced of the rightness of your own position, but, gosh, you seem to have lost touch with the reality of what words commonly mean, from my POV.
There’s no attack on patriotism whatever in that quote, Von. There just isn’t.
But now we’re just repeating ourselves.
Oy vey. Hilzoy, McCain didn’t actually say that it wants to “muddle through” in Afghanistan. Obama misrepresented McCain’s statement.
I’m late for dinner, so have to go.
“Yes, Hilzoy, which Obama then lied about in the following quote”
What lie?
Yep: I want to know what here is an attack on McCain’s patriotism. That’s what von originally alleged. That’s what I want to see.
As I said, if I am remembering things falsely due to my partisan blinders, I want to know.
“The form is “when John McCain was for X, I was for Y.””
See my 5:03 p.m. post. It actually has a diagram.
He didn’t say McCain wanted to muddle through. He said McCain “said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan”. To quote from the passage you have repeatedly pasted in. And he did say that.
Who said it is? Where did that come from? Huh?
Hogan: “Your efforts to win the war are misguided and will not succeed” is different from “You want us to lose the war so that your political career will benefit.” Obama is saying the former; McCain is saying the latter.
Yes. That.
See my 5:03 p.m. post. It actually has a diagram.
So, wait, von, now it’s OK to look beyond the actual physical words someone says, and start looking for connections, and implications, and logical inferences? It’s OK to use words just as a starting point, but look past them to context and subcontext?
If it’s OK to do that, then why are you giving hilzoy so much grief for the connections, logical inferences, context, etc. that lead her to believe that John McCain, along with a great many speakers and attendees at the RNC, are claiming a monopoly on patriotism?
Or is this another IOKIYAR thing?
Von, here is video of what McCain said.
My transcript of the relevant quote from John McCain: “I am concerned about it [the situation in Afghanistan]… but I’m not… I’m not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I’d be talking about Afghanistan. But I… I believe that… if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.”
Where’s the lie in saying that “John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan”?
There it is: where’s the lie?
And where’s the attack on John McCain’s patriotism?
Let me add, with all due respect to von: he’s spent an awful lot of time over the last few weeks parsing the words of McCain and his leading supporters narrowly in an attempt to spin away the offensiveness of a lot of what has been said. In all fairness to von, he’s also expressed acute dissatisfaction with McCain, and indicated that he might well vote for Obama.
We’ve been watching Republicans do this sort of thing for 8 years now, and we’re tired. Imagine what a Republican spokesperson would say in reaction to an accusation that the administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Every statement by someone in the administration we could point to would be closely construed, and weasel room would always be found. Nobody ever said that exactly. And yet, a large percentage of the country came away with the message that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
McCain is doing the same thing with Obama’s patriotism. You’ll never hear him say, “Obama is no patriot; Obama is a traitor”–but he knows darn well that people react to what he says by reaching such conclusions.
These people know what they are doing, they know what impression they are creating by innuendo–and they deliberately create that impression. von ought to quite trying to make excuses for them
I know I’m a bit late to the party here, but I can’t let von keep thinking Obama’s quote says what he thinks it does.
John McCain absolutely slammed Obama for saying Obama would send forces into Pakistan to get bin Laden. In fact, he used it to go after Obama, claiming it proved Obama didn’t understand foreign policy.
McCain also said he would not send troops into Pakistan without permission because they’re an ally, whereas Obama said he would.
But most experts think that bin Laden is in Pakistan. So Obama’s quote isn’t anywhere close to slamming McCain’s patriotism — it’s slamming McCain’s inability to focus on true threats due to a rather unhealthy fixation with Iraq.
It’s also in NO WAY close to what McCain has said — accusing Obama of sedition via the “I’d rather win a war than a campaign” crack.
So you can keep trying to make that quote from Obama be something else, and claim that he lied (even though McCain’s own words prove he did no such thing) but you’ll need to stretch like Silly Putty in order to get there.
Yep. I would rather get away from the quuestion what the lie in Obama’s statement is, and back to the question where Obama has impugned McCain’s patriotism.
That, after all, was von’s original accusation. It’s the one I said I didn’t remember.
Conflating impugning patriotism with making an attack that isn’t “legitimate” is a dodge. We can all get into what ‘legitimate’ means, and so on. But that’s not what von originally said. He made a much more specific charge, and one that I am still waiting to see an instance of.
An explanation of why the claim he went on to cite constitutes an accusation of patriotism would be fine. But to reiterate: I really don’t think it is. It’s a difference in judgment. McCain plainly thought that it would be possible to divert our attention, resources, intelligence assets, etc., from the ongoing war in Afghanistan to Iraq, and to “muddle through”. Obama did not.
McCain could have been right. If he had been, and if things in Afghanistan were going swimmingly, then Obama would at worst be complaining that McCain couldn’t have known this at the time, just got lucky, etc. The only reason this begins to work as an attack on McCain is that things are going badly there, and by trying to muddle through, we seriously damaged our attempts to go after al Qaeda.
That is: McCain and Obama both made judgments about whether it would be possible to succeed in Afghanistan while going to war in Iraq. Their judgments differed. Obama is pointing out that McCain’s was wrong.
That is altogether different from impugning his patriotism.
And, as I said, I’m still waiting for von to back up his original charge.
I’m afraid I don’t see Obama’s lie in Von’s 05:03, and even if I grant the existence of the lie I can’t get from there to the attack on patriotism. Hogan seems to have it right at 04:55.
Obama says McCain wants to pursue ineffective strategies in Afghanistan. He says his ideas will be more effective.
This is a statement about competence.
He is not saying McCain would like to lose in Afghanistan, and is certainly not saying McCain would be willing to lose in Afghanistan if he could benefit from it.
McCain said “It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign”.
This is a statement about intent.
He is saying Obama would be willing to lose a war if it meant he would win the election.
These are not equivalent statements. I hope that’s clear.
If you care to argue that they are equivalent, or even really comparable, you’ll need to take it up with someone else.
Thanks –
altogether different from impugning his patriotism.
There is no way, in the context of the speech, to characterize this in good faith as Obama questioning McCain’s patriotism, because Obama spends the next section of the speech explaining that he is not questioning McCain’s patriotism, and that we’ve got to learn to debate these policy issues without questioning each other’s patriotism.
I think that what Von was trying to do here was to argue that both McCain and Obama wanted to “finish the fight”, and that McCain thought we could finish the fight without making any functional changes.
Von- Does that sum it up so we can move on?
Deep breath all…
I think it would be unbelievably foolish if he did. It would certainly cause me not to vote for him.
I guess I just don’t see that wide gap in between claiming a monopoly on patriotism and saying that one’s opponent puts his own interests before his country’s interests.
As for the Obama quote: When people disagree about policy they almost always disagree about the effects of the various policy choices. Each thinks that their preferred choice will be better for the country.
To generalize from that to claiming that, since Obama thinks his choice was better, he must think McCain’s is worse, so he thinks McCain is hurting the country, so he’ calling McCain a traitor…
Well, it’s a sorry excuse for logic.
Or, as Gary said The form is “when John McCain was for X, I was for Y.” What on earth is wrong with that?
I would add “and I think Y will do Z.” Obama’s statement is easily interpreted as meaning that McCain thinks Y wouldn’t do Z, or was overkill for achieving Z, or that there’s some other way to better achieve Z.
Reading it as opposition to Z is just *insane*.
If Obama said “I voted for more funds for schools when McCain opposed it, because I think it will help us have a more literate populace” would you actually read that as a claim that McCain is *against literacy?* Or that they have differences of opinion about the role of the federal government, whether that program was the best choice, etc?
As I said before, you may as well save yourself the time of following the election news if you’re going to maul the meaning of words until they fit your preconceived narrative.
There is no way, in the context of the speech, to characterize this in good faith as Obama questioning McCain’s patriotism, because Obama spends the next section of the speech explaining that he is not questioning McCain’s patriotism
In fairness, I dont think that’s relevant; anyone can claim anything about their statements, but that doesn’t make it true. iirc, Charles Bird famously said he wasn’t questioning John Kerry’s patriotism directly before claiming that Kerry wanted to betray America’s troops…
“In fairness, I dont think that’s relevant; anyone can claim anything about their statements, but that doesn’t make it true.”
Yep.
So I would ask von, or anyone else, to provide an example of Obama questioning McCain;s patriotism.
Well, it’s not direct, but here you go.
anyone can claim anything about their statements, but that doesn’t make it true. iirc, Charles Bird famously said he wasn’t questioning John Kerry’s patriotism directly before claiming that Kerry wanted to betray America’s troops…
I can’t help it if Mr. Bird was incoherant; Obama isn’t.
My god, can standing up in front of a national audience and saying, “I disagree with McCain on policy, but I’m not questioning his patriotism” count as questioning his patriotism?
“In fairness, I dont think that’s relevant; anyone can claim anything about their statements, but that doesn’t make it true.”
Well, of course, it’s possible to say one thing and mean another, but if Obama were really obliquely questioning McCain’s patriotism he would hardly launch into a scathing attack on McCain and the Republicans for claiming that the very issue under discussion was a matter of patriotism and not policy differences, now would he?
“In fairness, I dont think that’s relevant; anyone can claim anything about their statements, but that doesn’t make it true.”
Well, of course, it’s possible to say one thing and mean another, but if Obama were really obliquely questioning McCain’s patriotism he would hardly launch into a scathing attack on McCain and the Republicans for claiming that the very issue under discussion was a matter of patriotism and not policy differences, now would he?
rea,
I think that McCain has said similar things about not questioning Obama’s patriotism.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
We are teetering on the edge of the end of the American empire. The current course of low taxes, a so-so safety net and high military spending is unsustainable. Every time the Treasury sells debt, we are at the mercy of foreigners remaining willing to lend us money at very low interest rates. Education standards are appalling low, with both parties bearing great responsibility for that failure. Peak Oil appears to be a real issue as does global climate change. We have turned a middle east regime from a counterweight to Iran into an ally of Iran. We are p*ssing away hard-earned gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in large part to a moronic War on Drugs.
And yet at a blog with some of the most sophisticated, articulate and well-educated writers I can find anywhere on the Internet, we are wrapped in a dispute as to whether Obama’s attacks on McCain are equivalent to McCain’s attacks on Obama.
And despite best efforts, a competent conservative lawyer sees equivalence when the liberals don’t. To him, sharp policy differences are an attack on character.
[deep sigh]
Because I am a relentless bastard who attempts to win by sheer weight of verbiage (tougher than you think with the internets, pixels don’t weight much), here’s an alternative take on the Obama quote and von’s dissection:
___
OBAMA: “When John McCain said [funding levels for schools “are high enough to teach our students”], I argued for more resources and more [teachers] to finish the fight against the [illiteracy that drags down our economy], and made clear that we must [educate our entire workforce to be competitive in the 21st century].”
What does McCain want to do about [school funding]? ==> [it’s “high enough”]
What does Obama want to do about [school funding]? ==> “finish the fight against the [illiteracy that drags down our economy], and made clear that we must [educate our entire workforce to be competitive in the 21st century].”
Is what McCain wants to do [it’s “high enough”] the same as what Obama wants to do finish the fight against the [illiteracy that drags down our economy] ==> I don’t see how that’s a plausible interpretation.
____
first, your endpoint there mistakenly compared McCain’s policy preference with Obama’s stated end goal. That is, either you think McCain didn’t say that (nb he did), or you don’t think it’s inherently an unpatriotic thing to say. Or, you think McCain actually is unpatriotic.
von, would that altered dialog convince you that Obama claimed that McCain was against literacy, or would it not seem to you that he suggested that they had different policy aims but similar overall goals? Or at worst, different priorities (eg maybe McCain thinks lowering taxes stimulates the economy more than this education spending would)?
And yet at a blog with some of the most sophisticated, articulate and well-educated writers I can find anywhere on the Internet, we are wrapped in a dispute as to whether Obama’s attacks on McCain are equivalent to McCain’s attacks on Obama.
Well, it’s not like I was going to solve world hunger if I wasn’t doing this. And, in my defence, I’ve actually got my laptop set up on a rolling table over my exercise bike, so Im getting my cardios!
(Or, more likely, I wasn’t one of the S.A.W.E.W.s you were talking about]
“Well, it’s not like I was going to solve world hunger if I wasn’t doing this.”
You’re willfully holding back, you scum.
Because you’re just that petty.
hilzoy on McCain: “I did, however, take him to be suggesting both that if more people would die as our position in Iraq deteriorated, that would be OK with Obama if it served his ambitions, and also that any damage to our national interests that might follow the loss of a war would be OK with Obama, if it served his ambitions.”
I didn’t take his assertion — which to be sure I found reprehensible — to go that far, that extreme.
Which is probably giving him the benefit of the doubt:
When you say that Obama would rather win a campaign than win a war, it’s so broad that it leaves plenty of room for interpretation — which probably is intentional.
Gary,
FWIW, I thought your offer to von to call it a day and just be happy drinking one’s Kool-Aid of choice was generous (no snark intended).
Although your later offer of a beer sounded better, this being a Friday night. (I’ll go for a Yeungling draft if you’re buying.)
Cheers.
“When you say that Obama would rather win a campaign than win a war,” you’re saying that you’re willing to see your country “lose a war” it should “win,” for the sake of your personal ambition. In a war, particularly when deliberately engaging in acts that will lead to your “losing” it, lots of people will die needlessly, and it will be your fault.
There’s just no other way to understand that that makes any sense: Obama is willing to let us lose a war, but no more people will die pointlessly as a result? How would that work, exactly? Magic winged ponies would protect everyone by flying them away to Never-Never Land?
Hilzoy,
I could not possibly agree more.
If there is one solitary issue that makes me oppose John McCain emphatically it is stance on warfare.
FWIW,McCain clearly called out Obama’s patriotism. No dispute here.
I do see Obama as having stepped over the “questioning patriotism line” ever so slightly in the quote by implying (but not explicitly stating) that McCain isn’t wanting to go after Obama when he is in our sights notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary later.
But it’s not a big deal.
The shade of meaning isn’t the only interpretation (obviously) of that phrase. But Obama felt it necessary to emphasize that he wasn’t questioning McCain’s patriotism in the next breath, so . . .
Would you respect me more if I wrote lots of posts about how “I’m #1! I’m #1! I’m #1!” or “I’m really smart and brave and great!” over and over, completely seriously?
I starting to see why many here were so offended by the stars and stripes at the RNC. I don’t see patriotism as being about that at all.
I think this is the greatest country on earth because of the freedom and opportunity that exist here (even in the light of our imperfections), not because I am somehow better than anyone else in another country. I thank God I was born here and often feel guilty about the blessings I enjoy versus others in this world. There is a reason so many people long to live here. But that isn’t to say, again, that I am somehow better.
And if I were born in another country, I would celebrate the positive aspects of that country. Many, many countries are as free as our own and have similar economic opportunities and histories to be proud of. Nothing wrong with that.
Maybe that is where the divide really is.
Many apparently feel that celebrating the amazing life, society, government and freedoms we have through flag waving etc. is wrong in light of our imperfections. I don’t see it that way.
And the issue is no doubt more front and center due to Ayers and Michelle Obama’s statement, for right or for wrong.
Paying taxes is something you do for your country. Clamoring for tax cuts is something you ask your country to do for you.
No way. Not true for me. Government is simply too wasteful. Should I gladly pay taxes for all the pork barrel projects out there? If what you’re saying is that we should all be willing to pay for the basic services of government, I’m with you all the way.
But we probably differ on what those services are. I think we should all help our fellow citizens on our own free of governmental influence. That might be a train wreck for a bit. I could certainly do a lot more good with an extra $10k or so of my tax money back. and it would be voluntary, efficient etc. As it is, my charity ends after donating to my church and a few select charities (other than my time) because I’d be broke otherwise.
I pay my taxes (not a tax protester) but I don’t think I’m unpatriotic to pay the last 1/3 grumpily.
I am just going to put out that I’m planning to buy Andrew Bacevich’s The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism this weekend (Hanna permitting) and I think it would be a superb choice for an ObiWi Book Club discussion.
This has been a surreal back-and-forth!
Von insists that when Obama criticizes McCain on strategy, it’s the very same thing as Obama impugning McCain’s patriotism. Then he turns around and insists that when McCain accuses Obama of putting personal ambition ahead of Victory in Iraq,he is *not* impugning Obama’s patriotism.
Here’s the only way I can make sense of it: The Republican Party has conflated hostility towards Republican policies with hostility for America for many years now. The Republican Party has also gotten into the habit of believing that it alone has legitimacy to define American interests and American strategies in pursuit of those interests – that any divergence from Republican policy positions is illegitimate per se.
That attitude goes back at least as far as Nixon, and accelarated sharply since Reagan. To anyone who’s been a loyal Republican for that long, “Republican definitions = the only legitimate definitions” has become a habit of thought so ingrained as to be a default setting. This is particularly true in military and national security matters.
Thus any criticism of McCain is ipso facto a slam at McCain’s patriotism, because McCain – as a Republican – is the one who loves America most; and any criticism of Obama is okay, because after all Democrats just don’t love America.
I don’t know if Von just can’t imagine that McCain could possibly be wrong, or if he just can’t imagine that Obama could possibly be right, or both.
Only if taken as Jesurgislac would take it. Otherwise, it could be taken to mean that McCain deliberately intends to screw things up in Afghanistan.
I’m agnostic on this particular point, though.
Oh, and sorry about the Jesurgislac thing. That was pretty harsh.
bc: The five largest federal govt programs are (a) defense, (b) soc sec, (c) medicare, (d) medicaid, and (e) interest on debt.
The three entitlement programs are straight transfer payments. You may think that the amount of money paid to a medicaid service provider is too high (and therefore a “waste”), but at least the money circulates back into the system. Debt payments are a feature of the (mostly republican) consequence of spending more than we tax. The deadweight cost of those programs — like salaries and benefits of federal employees who move the money around — is microscopic compared to the size of these programs.
Defense-related programs, on the other hand, have a staggering amount of waste. But no one seems willing to identify the cuts they’d make. Troop salaries? Retire a couple of carriers early? Eliminate a brigade or two? More base closures?
btw, total defense spending, including Dept of Defense, Dept of Energy (nukes), DHS, non-DOD intelligence, VA and payments for debt incurred in underfunded wars, is about $750 BILLION a year.
Here is a list of the 15 executive Departments. There are any number of resources out there for looking at the federal budget.
Waste? Have at it. Whose ox are you willing to gore?
Ah. See, this is what I get for reading the thread in reverse chronological order. Please disregard that last.
You could start the ball rolling, Francis.
Troops and their paychecks are not defense programs.
Carriers that are already deployed are not defense programs, either.
Bases currently in operation aren’t defense programs.
I’m guessing, from the gist of your suggestions, that you’re really talking about overall reductions in the entire defense budget. If so, you could throw in cutting back early military retirement pensions. Particularly for the double- and triple-dippers. I wouldn’t be opposed to frequent (annual) review of the DoD budget (well, hey, why not everyone else’s budget as well) to eliminate all of the pet programs, redundancies, and waste. But I don’t think we have an agency in place to make any of that stick.
Von,
The sooner you face the fact that everyone opposed to you is always right and you are wrong the easier it will be for you.
That you take things out of context, but they don’t the easier it will be for you.
bc: Should I gladly pay taxes for all the pork barrel projects out there?
If you do something gladly, it’s not a “sacrifice”, is it? So, no.
Now, suppose you and I disagree over whether the invasion of Iraq was a waste of a trillion dollars. Should we each have the individual choice whether to fund that particular barrel of pork? If not, what makes it different from any other barrel of pork?
I think you’re dodging my actual point. Getting a tax cut is a benefit to you, personally. Not to your country, but to you. Clamoring for a tax cut for yourself is the very opposite of a “cause greater than self-interest.” So, what kind of “sacrifice for a cause greater than your self-interest” do you think McCain is exhorting you to?
–TP
You could start the ball rolling, Francis.
Slarti, the phrase “defense related programs” does not mean specific procurement projects to most people. You might have a different understanding since you work in the defense industry, but since Francis is a water rights attorney, I think we can cut him a little slack. After all, the rest of his comment made it crystal clear that the phrase “defense related programs” was an umbrella meant to cover all manner of activities funded by the DOD, including far more than new weapons procurement projects like the F-22 or DDX destroyer.
So yeah, I’d like to know why we can’t talk about cutting some army divisions or mothballing some carrier battle groups or eliminating the Missile Defense Agency or cutting the DDX or scaling back on purchases of F-22s. Alternatively, we could just obsess about what precisely constitutes a “defense related program”, but that would sort of make Francis’ point by demonstrating that this country is simply incapable of seriously cutting the defense budget or even of talking about such cutting.
“Many apparently feel that celebrating the amazing life, society, government and freedoms we have through flag waving etc. is wrong in light of our imperfections.”
Many may or may not feel that way, but I’m all for the celebrating. I’m fine with putting up the flag. I’m not much on waving it a lot, because I’m not big on any sort of over-doing things, but I’m okay with a fair amount of it, until it gets to the point of absurdity, or hypocrisy.
I think the U.S. is a great country, and I think I’m extremely patriotic towards it, and part of my patriotism includes wanting it to live up to all its ideals, and also recognize when it hasn’t, and make amends.
I couldn’t be a bigger fan of the Federalist Papers, or the ideals espoused both in its founding, and by some of its later citizens.
I also don’t believe in blind patriotism, or jingoism. And I’m uninterested in arguments about what’s the best anything.
“Government is simply too wasteful.”
Most human endeavors are wasteful; most private business are wasteful, and many are terribly wasteful. I don’t think that most government activities are waste — though some are, or are outright harmful — and maybe that’s a dividing line.
“I think we should all help our fellow citizens on our own free of governmental influence.”
I’m big on the idea that we all get together, and argue about how much of our money we should pool, and then we all get a say in choosing people we delegate many of decisions to in how our pooled money should be spent. I don’t know a fairer way to determine how to help each other, and those who need help. I don’t observe that leaving it to pot luck and chance works very well at all. I think if you surveyed most poor people who need help, they’d agree that private charity doesn’t remotely do enough; historically, I’m unaware of any society where leaving it purely to private charity has resulted in other than great mass suffering.
I think that a lot of people who aren’t poor or disadvantaged are completely clueless about what it’s like.
And they have the privilege of not having to know. Good for them.
Not so good for those at the bottom of the heap, below the poverty line.
“I’m fine with putting up the flag.”
I’d like to say, as a separate mini-rant, that if people are going to put up a flag, that it’s disrespectful to not follow the flag code: if you put it up, either take it down at night, or make sure it’s illuminated. Don’t leave a flag out so long that it becomes ratty. Don’t leave it out in the rain. Don’t use the flag as a set of images to make clothing into, including ties.
And don’t use it to claim you’re more patriotic than your neighbor, or someone else.
That’s not the sort of flag-waving I was taught was patriotic or respectful when I was a Boy Scout and Cub Scout. Do it right, or don’t do it at all.
Turb:
I’d like to know why we can’t talk about cutting some army divisions etc.
I don’t know if anyone Serious besides Andrew Bacevich is talking about such things, but — he *is*. Bill Moyers, at least, is willing to listen.
Book club!
A lot of comments flown by, and I won’t try to parse them all. I’m actually thinking of a front-page post on this subject, because it occurs to me that the rationale for the different readings is far more fundamental than is being debated here.
For example, here’s Hilzoy talking about McCain’s “muddle through” comment (and, implicitly, Obama’s characterization of it):
An explanation of why the claim he went on to cite constitutes an accusation of patriotism would be fine. But to reiterate: I really don’t think it is. It’s a difference in judgment. McCain plainly thought that it would be possible to divert our attention, resources, intelligence assets, etc., from the ongoing war in Afghanistan to Iraq, and to “muddle through”. Obama did not.
I read this statement and I think the following: What on earth is Hilzoy thinking? This characterization of the context and meaning of McCain’s remarks is just false, and the conclusion is laughable. Since I know that Hilzoy is a well-read philosophy professor, my next thought is that she can’t possibly be this stupid. She must be lying.
And here’s why I think that:
McCain plainly thought that it would be possible to divert our attention, resources, intelligence assets, etc., from the ongoing war in Afghanistan to Iraq, and to “muddle through”. Obama did not.
The quote comes from the Q&A portion of McCain’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in November 2003. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/6502/us_situation_in_iraq_and_afghanistan.html) It’s after the invasion of Iraq, so one of Hilzoy’s premises is wrong: McCain wasn’t talking about whether “it would be possible to divert our attention, resources, intelligence assets, etc., from the ongoing war in Afghanistan to Iraq.” The resources had already been diverted.
The subject of the CFR speech is what to do in Iraq, which has already shown itself to be a much tougher battle than had been expected or sold. If you read the entire transcript — it’s actually quite interesting — you’ll see that a lot of it involves McCain chiding the Bush administration, disputing Administration, and talking frankly about intelligence failures, our loss of credibility, and the likelihood of disaster in Iraq.
Anyhoo. Obama (and you) are not interested in the speech. You’re interested in the Question and answer where McCain uses the phrase “muddle through.” Here it is:
Now, I frankly have no idea what Obama was saying in November of 2003 about Iraq. He was still a member of the Illinois Senate then. But maybe he was calling for more funding for Afghanistan. But there’s the rub: so was McCain. In this very passage.
Moreover, McCain wasn’t saying that he wanted to “muddle through” in Afghanistan, as Obama implies. He was assessing priorities: whether at that time the situation in Iraq or the situation in Afghanistan was more dire. His assessment that Iraq was more dire at the time seems not only sound and well-supported, but perhaps undisputable. If Obama really was advocating moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2003 — and, again, there’s no evidence I know of that he was — it would really call into question his foreign policy chops.
But, of course, Obama isn’t interested in what McCain really said or the context for it. It makes McCain look sensible, reasonable, level-headed. Rather, Obama wants folks to conclude — as Hilzoy evidently did — that McCain was talking about Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.
BTW, I don’t really think that Hilzoy is lying. I should have made that clear. I just think that she’s more likely to accept second hand sources re: McCain than she is re: Obama.
Pile on in 3… 2… 1…
I don’t know how there can be a pile on, Anarch. Just read McCain’s remarks in context.
President Karzai, who I happen to admire, controls all of Iraq (sic) till you get to the city limits of Kabul.
What does this mean? Even if you read “Afghanistan” for “Iraq” it’s backwards. The Afghan government controlled only Kabul itself. The rest of the country was and is outside the central government’s control.
Yeah, Ral: I think the context makes clear that McCain said the opposite of what he meant in addition to substituting Iraq for Afghanistan — or else his comments about the tribal areas make no sense.
Von: There it is: where’s the lie by Obama?
And where’s the attack on John McCain’s patriotism?
“If Obama really was advocating moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2003 — and, again, there’s no evidence I know of that he was — it would really call into question his foreign policy chops.”
There’s a key debate, of course. Some of us have all along said the diversion of Iraq was a diversion, and have all along said Afghanistan needed more resources, and money, including much of that which was diverted to Iraq. You feel that such opinions “call into question” such people’s “foreign policy chops.”
But that’s a reasonable debate. Where’s the lying, and the attack on McCain’s patriotism?
And I’d like an answer to this, as well: “But McCain has never said he has a monopoly of patriotism.”
No, he leaves that to all the surrogates. Von, do you expect us to fall for that? Do you expect us to believe McCain should be relieved of responsibility for what his campaign, and the Republican leadership, and the Republican National Convention, and all its speakers, say and do, because he stands off and says some nice words, and leaves most of the dirty work to everyone else?
That’s what people mean when they suggest you’re being disingenuous. It’s just not a plausible line of argument you appear to be making. And if that’s not the argument you’re making — that McCain, the czar, has no knowledge of what everyone under is doing, and thus no responsibility — then I have absolutely no idea what argument you are making.
“Of course patriotism is part of the debate. It has to be.”
Oh? Why?
Is the Obama campaign making McCain’s patriotism part of the debate? Are the Democrats in general saying McCain doesn’t love America? Are the Obama campaign or Democrats in general saying that we’re more patriotic than Republicans? If so, please give us some pointers. If not, then how is what you just said there true?
I don’t question that McCain or Republicans in general love America. I don’t question their patriotism (though I do question much of what they think it requires, and the policies they believe flow from it).
Why, then, do so many Republicans, and the theme of Republican conventions and so many Republican politicians, over and over question my patriotism, and love of my country, and that of so many Democrats, both rank-and-file, and our politicians?
Why, my friend?
And, once again: “Moreover, McCain wasn’t saying that he wanted to ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, as Obama implies.”
Again, you are making up “wanted to” part out of whole cloth, out of your imagination. You’ve been repeatedly corrected on this: please stop misstating what Obama said. Now you’re just saying he “implied” it, which is better, but is still *your* words. You cannot make up words, attribute them to someone, and then claim it’s a lie. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly.
As you yourself quoted: OBAMA: “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.”
John McCain said “But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that — in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.”
Quoting that is not a lie. And where’s the damn attack on John McCain’s patriotism in it?
And back to the original point: you claim that “I don’t see any assumption on the part of McCain — spoken or unspoken — that he has a monopoly on honor and decency and love for country.”
Again: McCain holds no responsibility for what was said at the Republican National Convention, is said by his surrogates, and is said by his campaign? He holds no responsibility for the words said by Palin? We can only hold him responsible for the words that come out of his mouth directly? That’s your argument?
Or is it just the immensely useful “please stop being obtuse”?
I have absolutely no desire to reengage with this argument, whether or not anyone thinks I’m being disingenuous or sloppy with sources. I had not thought that McCain’s criticisms of Bush’s handling of Iraq were directly relevant to what he said about Afghanistan, or to whether resources would need to be diverted from Afghanstan.
McCain said, in late 2003, that we would be able to “muddle through” in Afghanistan. Since I did not imagine that the question whether we’d be able to deal with Afghanistan adequately had not occurred to McCain until late 2003, I assumed that he had thought that we would be able both to succeed in Afghanistan and to fight a war in Iraq, simultaneously, before we invaded. I’m sorry if this assumption was confusing. And since the developments in Iraq, at the time McCain spoke, had not affected the level of resources that needed to be diverted, I thought that he probably thought the same before the invasion.
I admit that Obama’s phrasing, and mine, would seem disingenuous to anyone who thought that McCain had not thought about the diversion of resources before the invasion, and/or did not imagine that invading Iraq would make it more difficult to succeed in Afghanistan. Now that I understand the basis of von’s complaints, I see his point, though I think it is probably uncharitable to McCain.
I am still waiting for an example of Obama impugning McCain’s patriotism. That was the original claim at issue, from which all the rest is distraction.
Leaving aside questions of patriotism, how about considering judgment?
Senator McCain, in late 2003, got the name of the country wrong, said the opposite of what he meant, and was guardedly optimistic about Afghanistan.
Is this supposed to demonstrate foreign policy expertise?
“Is this supposed to demonstrate foreign policy expertise?”
I have to say that I have a huge list of things to criticize McCain about, but I constantly am prone to verbal reversals, and substituting the wrong word than I mean, and I don’t think that means my judgment is off.
(Other things may mean my judgment is off, like my actual judgments.)
Nor does being guardedly optimistic about Afghanistan in 2003 seem wildly crazy to me.
I’d pick on other stuff.
Gary, even granting the benefit of the doubt as “reasonable” (in my opinion “reasonable” is not a given), it certainly was an inaccurate prediction.
It may well have been that Iraq precluded allocating adequate resources to Afghanistan. But that is not what was said at the time, neither by Senator McCain nor the Bush administration.
ral: I’m with Gary. If you want to criticize McCain on foreign policy, go for the downright idiotic ones like kicking Russia out of the G8. Or bringing Georgia into NATO which does next to nothing for US interests, but sure as hell pisses the Russians off. There’s a post from around the time the Georgia conflict was hot that discusses that.
One other way the McCain-Palin campaign is exploiting 9-11. Sarah Palin said in her speech on Wednesday night, about her son Track, that “one week from tomorrow – September 11th – he’ll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry.” Turns out the unit is actually deploying on September 12th. But I guess to the Republicans 9-12 is just so much less SEXY than 9-11, so why fuss with facts?
Sometimes I appear to have a bee in my bonnet respecting Afghanistan. And I agree, heading for a military confrontation with Russia is far more crazy.
I just bring it up because, you know, we did use force in Afghanistan and the situation has been deteriorating there for a long time. Predictably so, in my view.
OK, I’ll give it a rest. Good night.
ral: I feel you with being upset about Afghanistan. We go there with a legitimate purpose then just blow it off for whatever reason in Iraq. Apparently catching Saddam was way more important than finding that Osama dude…
Man. The thought is depressing.
I think the context makes clear that McCain said the opposite of what he meant
And this is Obama’s fault? That McCain so frequently hedges his bets (eg the economy is great in the primary, but poor now that he’s in the general; the surge is a great idea, but it won’t work without more troops) is not exactly a virtue. Except, of course, to those who would defend him by invoking whichever side of his mouth managed to make him look prescient.
If Obama really was advocating moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2003…
wittle refresher for you- McCain was against sending mroe troops to Afghanistan until *this year*. So if Obama quoted him from 2003, it’s in support of a position that he maintained well past that point. He could be referring to anytime between McCain’s statement and his recent flip-flop on the issue. You seem so worked out about McCain being taken out of context, but you appear to willfully distort (again) Obama’s quote to try to make him look foolish by claiming that it can only apply to the moment that McCain uttered the words, rather than to the entire period of time that he supported the policy explained by those words.
And, of course, by virtue of your tiresome explaination you’ve managed to avoid the issue how you smeared Obama by pretending that a policy debate was an attack on McCain’s character. How you (apparently) think that *any* policy debate is an attack on character by virtue of suggesting that the subject doesn’t want to achieve the stated desire of the policy.
Which is good for you, because you also think that political campaigns *ought* to be about questioning each others’ patriotism. No wonder you’re so pleased with McCain, he’s the only one carrying out a *proper* campaign.
In a way, Im sort of glad you’ve chosen to support McCain- Id be embarassed to have this sort of argumentation used for a candidate or policy that I was in favor of.
This whole question of patriotism would go away if so many people in the US didn’t hold the same opinions as our enemies our side with terrorists.
It makes the issue very confusiong.
As does poor typing…
This whole question of patriotism would go away if so many people in the US didn’t hold the same opinions as our enemies or side with terrorists.
It makes the issue very confusing.
I give up. I had thought that y’all could at least meet me at, “yeah, Obama’s ‘muddle through’ comment” misrepresented McCains’ record. I wasn’t even hoping that you’d see the rest of my perspective. But y’all are too far in the tank for Obama even for that.
Carleton, as my above comment suggested, I’m trying by baby steps to get you to see my perspective.
Anyhoo.
I must be a glutton for punishment.
Von insists that when Obama criticizes McCain on strategy, it’s the very same thing as Obama impugning McCain’s patriotism. Then he turns around and insists that when McCain accuses Obama of putting personal ambition ahead of Victory in Iraq,he is *not* impugning Obama’s patriotism.
No, CaseyL.
If you want an agreement that McCain’s statement about Obama putting personal ambition ahead of victory is qualitatively worse than the other statements we’re discussing, you had it a long time ago (above).
It’s impossible for me not to take Obama’s statement about McCain “muddling through” on Iraq and not wanting to follow Osama to his cave as an attack on McCain’s willingness to defend this country. That’s an attack on his patriotism. Add to this the fact that Obama is lying about what McCain said and misrepresenting the timing of McCain’s statement, and, yeah, I don’t think it reflects well at all on Obama.
I see how others view it as a policy disagreement, however, because it is also that: a misleading framed one, sure, but a policy disagreement nonetheless. I don’t see how some can’t recognize that it was at least misleading framed. Carleton Wu provides one example.
MeDrewNotYou wrote:
Or bringing Georgia into NATO which does next to nothing for US interests, but sure as hell pisses the Russians off.
Seems to me rather pointless in this context, since Obama’s position doesn’t appear to be substantially different. It’s not only Georgia, Ukraine is supposed to join NATO as well. See Billmon’s entry at Dailykos for some history of this.
I am still waiting for an example of Obama impugning McCain’s patriotism. That was the original claim at issue, from which all the rest is distraction.
Actually, Hilzoy, the original claim at issue was whether McCain claimed to have a monopoly on patriotism. When no support was provided for the original claim, the question morphed into whether Obama had ever attacked McCain’s patriotism. My view is that Obama did in the “muddle through” series of comments, but you disagree. So there we are.
von: I had thought that y’all could at least meet me at, “yeah, Obama’s ‘muddle through’ comment” misrepresented McCains’ record.
In what way? That’s what McCain said.
as an attack on McCain’s willingness to defend this country [effectively].
Fixed that for you.
That’s an attack on his patriotism.
No, it’s an attack on McCain’s smarts. That McCain believed the right thing to do was to withdraw resources from Afghanistan and “muddle through” there in order to focus on Iraq is a matter of record. Obama didn’t misrepresent that: you may want to believe that McCain opposed Bush’s indifference to Afghanistan and the war on Iraq, but your wishing your candidate had the smarts to think that through five years ago won’t make it so.
Which makes me wonder, Von: since you want so much to support a candidate who did have the smarts to see that attacking Iraq was a waste of resources and Afghanistan was where the US ought to focus attention, why are you wasting your time wishing hard that McCain was that candidate and trying to get the rest of us to “meet you” in pretending your wishes are reality?
I’m willing to pretend you’ve got a pony.
That might be a train wreck for a bit. I could certainly do a lot more good with an extra $10k or so of my tax money back. and it would be voluntary, efficient etc.
Two things here:
1. If you are actually paying so much in excess of $10K in taxes that you could get “an extra $10k or so back” while still contributing your portion of the services you believe government should be handling, and yet “[your] charity ends after donating to my church and a few select charities,” you are not nearly as generous as you appear to think you are.
2. I’ll bet any amount of money that if your income increased, and taxes decreased, by “an extra $10k or so,” that you wouldn’t give more than 1% of it to charity. Not a knock on you personally – most people wouldn’t. They wouldn’t, and they don’t.
von: the original claim at issue was whether McCain claimed to have a monopoly on patriotism. When no support was provided for the original claim
Aside from Sarah Palin’s speech, written for McCain’s VP nom to deliver by McCain’s campaign team. I pointed out upthread that this meant your assertion you wouldn’t vote for McCain if he’d claimed to have a monopoly on patriotism evidently only meant that you wouldn’t vote for McCain if he himself delivered a speech claiming that: if he has his speechwriters get someone else to voice that view, you’re fine with that. Okay, fine, McCain’s voice makes all the difference.
But claiming “no support” was provided? That’s just a lie. Plenty of people besides me adduced Sarah Palin’s speech as support for that point.
If you want an agreement that McCain’s statement about Obama putting personal ambition ahead of victory is qualitatively worse than the other statements we’re discussing, you had it a long time ago (above).
Thank you.
And just so I’m not hanging my a$$ over the line too much, regarding my comment above, I assume, bc, that you don’t want your taxes to be $0, since you said you have no trouble funding those portions of government you deem essential.
So, let’s lowball and assume that, if you think you could get “an extra $10k or so back” in taxes, that you’re paying $15,000 in taxes.
According to this year’s tax tables, in order to pay $15,000 in taxes, if you’re married filing jointly (which I assume you are, since you’ve previously mentioned you have daughters), you have to have at least $88,600 in taxable income. That’s taxable income, after credits and deductions. If you’re making $88,600 in taxable incomes — meaning you’re probably grossing over $100,000 — and all you’re giving is to “your church and a couple charities,” well, you might want to re-examine your premises.
My reaction to hilzoy’s piece was, “Those people killed everyone who has died in Iraq.”
That’s my reaction: those people at that conventioon who lie about everything–their own positions of the issues, Palin’s experiences and past record, Obama’s record, etc–the biggest lie of all is their smug assumption of superior virtue.
They killed has who died in the war they supported based on lies and continue to support with lies.
So i really don’t give a shit if their claims to superior patriotism are overt or hidden behind plausible deniability.
. I’m just sick of all the hair splitting and so oon. Bottom line: the Rewpublican adminsiitration lied about a war and now a lot of people are dead who othersie wouldn’t be and we just witnesses a convention full of people who can’t honestly and openly stae their policy agenda since thay would lose the elction for sure if they did so they spent all their time either lying about themselves or lying about liberals cxommunity organizers or Obama.
So, again, I don’t give a shit is mcCain himslef said the exzact word that he is more patriotic or whatever. He’s the leader of a political party that no longer has any virtues to offset its myriad crimes, lies, corruption, pandring to extremists, or other offenses. Certainly not the virtue of superior patriotism.
But isn’t that the claim being discussed? That McCain’s tactics have been qualitatively different than Obama’s? That is, different in kind, not just in degree? If that’s what you meant to say, then I think you’ve ceded the point.
“But y’all are too far in the tank for Obama even for that.”
You never managed to come up with an example of Obama attacking McCain’s patriotism.
“I had thought that y’all could at least meet me at, ‘yeah, Obama’s ‘muddle through’ comment” misrepresented McCains’ record.”
I have no problem seeing that McCain and his supporters would prefer to see it as unfairly not fully encompassing McCain’s view. That’s not the point: the point was whether it was fair to represent that McCain said it, and it seems clear to me that McCain most certainly said it, regardless of whatever the vast breadth of his thinking about Afghanistan was. If you think it’s unfair to quote someone like that, what do you have to say about pretty much every Republican attack on almost everything Obama has ever been quoted as saying?
So, about the alleged equivalency of Republican and Democratic, and Obama campaign and McCain campaign attacks on the patriotism of the other?
Toml: “This whole question of patriotism would go away if so many people in the US didn’t hold the same opinions as our enemies or side with terrorists.”
How very 2002 of you. Ah, yes, anyone who doesn’t agree with you hates America and “sides with terrorists.” A fine way to join in productive policy debate with fellow Americans. Either it’s your way, or you’re a traitor. Very edifying. Very useful. Von, is this the sort of support you welcome?
” Add to this the fact that Obama is lying about what McCain said”
Von, he just isn’t. You’re free to claim that what McCain said didn’t accurate represent what McCain really thought, but it’s what he said.
For the billionth time, McCain said “But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that — in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.”
That’s what he said. You quote him as saying that.
You weren’t lying when you quoted that, and neither was Obama.
Take issue with Obama for not giving McCain the benefit of the doubt that McCain really was thinking something else, as you maintain, as you like, but quit saying Obama was lying by quoting. (“Can” for “may” is not a significant paraphrase change.)
This whole question of patriotism would go away if so many people in the US didn’t hold the same opinions as our enemies or side with terrorists.
It makes the issue very confusing.
Posted by: toml | September 06, 2008 at 08:19 AM
Welcome back, bril.
Is that bril? It’s such a common rightwing reading of anyone who criticizes US foreign policy that I don’t think it narrows down the number of possibilities to lower than, oh, every single rightwinger with internet access.
There’s also this comment, which features more of bril’s recognizable comment ‘tics’ (eg, posting completely off-topic blockquoted text without providing a link to the original source.)
Regardless, Hil just gave it the boot. *cracks beer*
I was cutting him a little slack, Turbulence. I’m guessing, from the gist of your suggestions, that you’re really talking about overall reductions in the entire defense budget ought to have been a giveaway that this was a gentler sort of correction.
Talking about cutting back defense expenditures is something that’s happening constantly, Turbulence. F-22 has already been cut back a couple of times. It’s not that there isn’t ever debate on this, it’s that the consensus opinion happens to differ with yours.
I’ve got no problem at all with discussing this sort of thing, FWIW. It’s just that you and I discussing it doesn’t make a difference when budget-setting time rolls around.
I suppose I should also add that I agree with Francis’ statement about it all depending on whose ox is being gored. I absolutely agree with that, which is just one more reason why I don’t involve myself directly in politics, outside of going to the polls and casting my vote. There’s always this danger, I think, that there will be enough people voting their wallets that it will adversely affect the country.
Probably that last bit should have been posed in some past tense, but I’m not going to rewrite it. Suffice it to say that I don’t want to add myself to the heap of people whose votes are being purchased with tax revenues, any more than I am already.
fwiw, no evidence that it was bril.
I looked, hilzoy, but I was thinking that if only folks declined to argue with the troll, it would go away. I suppose it said some more overtly banworthy things since yesterday.
Slarti: it consistently disrupted conversation for its own sake, and it directly insulted lj.
the original claim at issue was whether McCain claimed to have a monopoly on patriotism. When no support was provided for the original claim
If you were waiting for an example of McCain literally saying that (similar to the ‘imminent threat’ argument a few years back), then yes. otoh, claiming that one is motivated solely by patriotism while one’s opponent is motivated by self-interest over the interest of the country *is* claiming a monopoly on patriotism, in so many words.
Im curious as to what would fulfil this statement other than a literal quote, in your mind. If this is the case, you could’ve made this thread a lot shorter by saying ‘McCain never literally said X’; I think we can all agree on that.
the question morphed into whether Obama had ever attacked McCain’s patriotism. My view is that Obama did in the “muddle through” series of comments, but you disagree.
Your analysis clearly shows your reasoning is flawed- you compare McCain’s policy preference with Obama’s stated goals, and claim that this means Obama claims that McCain does not want to reach that goal.
This turns every policy disagreement into an attack on character (because it presumes a difference on ends rather than means), but I don’t think you or anyone else truly thinks this. You’ve resorted to this bogus argument because you *needed* an Obama attack on McCain’s patrioitism in order to inoculate McCain.
This turns every policy disagreement into an attack on character
I want to expand on this, bc I think it’s very important. Let’s imagine that, in 2006
-Obama wants to draw down the troop levels in Iraq and shift some to Afghanistan “in order to increase pressure on Al Qaeda”
-McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq “in order to establish the security necessary for political progress to occur”
That does not mean that Obama doesn’t want security or political progress in Iraq. It does not mean that McCain does not want to increase pressure on Al Qaeda. Presumably both of them want both of those things, but they disagree about priorities and methods.
For Obama to state that position isn’t questioning McCain’s patriotism. If Obama said that McCain opposed this to earn points with Bush supporters so he could be president, then I would say yes, that is questioning McCain’s patriotism.
Now, that kind of argument is made explicitly sometimes- I seem to recall a great deal of this being done a few years ago by the GOP. That is, Bush would say ‘I want X. I want X because it will bring outcome Y. People who oppose this, they must not want outcome Y.’
Obama’s use of the word “muddle” is just taking advantage of unfortunate phrasing by McCain, but the sentiment from 2003-2008 is exactly what McCain said- he thought we could get by with what we had in order to concentrate on other priorities. *Not* that he thought we could get by on what we had because he hates America or is somehow personally benefiting from the situation.
but the sentiment from 2003-2008 is exactly what McCain said-
It’s a sentiment from November 2003. Since the word “disingenuous” seems popular round these parts, let me add that Gary is being disingenous in arguing that this:
Supports this:
As an aside, I had no idea that Obama was arguing for more troops in Afghanistan and taking the battle to Pakistan in November 2003, when Obama was in the Illinois Senate. (The “taking the battle to Pakistan brou-ha-ha occurred in August, 2008, almost 5 years later.) Since Obama never lies, however, I’m sure the tape will surface.
(N.b. that I’m not making the claim that McCain never lies.)
von” When no support was provided for the original claim [that McCain and prominent Republicans at the convention claimed to have a monopoly on patriotism], the question morphed into whether Obama had ever attacked McCain’s patriotism.
This is dishonest argument, tipped off by von’s use of the passive voice and invisible agent (“the question morphed”).
First, plenty of commenters provided support for the idea that McCain and other prominent Republicans at the convention did claim to have a monopoly on patriotism.
Second, here is how “the question morphed”: Von made the claim at 3:58 pm yesterday that Obama has questioned McCain’s patriotism.
von: of course McCain has questioned whether Obama has the country’s interests at heart as much as McCain does, i.e., questioned his patriotism. And Obama has done the same in return to McCain, i.e., questioned McCain’s patriotism.
In doing so, however, he redefined the meaning of ‘questioning the other’s patriotism’ to a something different from the sense in which the original post and a number of commenters who agreed with the post claimed McCain and many other prominent Republicans at the convention had done.
The specific charge that McCain made repeatedly in the weeks before the convention, and that Palin made in a speech written by McCain’s staff, is not merely that Obama does not have the country’s interests at heart to the same extent as McCain, i.e., that he is not as patriotic as McCain, but that Obama puts his own selfish interests in acquiring power (being elected) ahead of the country’s to the extent of wanting to “lose” the war in Iraq, i.e. that Obama is not patriotic at all.
I’m less angry than when I first read the post. But I’m sadder.
Okay, apparently I’m still angry enough not to use preview.
Italics begone!
von: I explained why I thought what I did: namely, I assumed that McCain, as his party’s nominee, is in control of what happens at his convention, and thus that when that convention is largely given over to questioning liberals’ love of country, he bears some responsibility for that. I also said that if it turned out that he was not, in fact, in control of his party’s convention, I would retract.
You, however, have yet to substantiate the claim you made: that Obama had impugned McCain’s patriotism. I think it matters.
Does questioning McCain’s military record count? Does having others do your dirty work for you count?
McCain specifically said he didn’t question Obama’s patriotism. Is that not clear enough?
If Obama’s words about America din’t sound the same as the people who hate America we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
When AQ and the Iranian’s use your talking points it makes one wonder.
Does questioning McCain’s military record count? Does having others do your dirty work for you count?
McCain specifically said he didn’t question Obama’s patriotism. Is that not clear enough?
If Obama’s words about America din’t sound the same as the people who hate America we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
When AQ and the Iranian’s use your talking points it makes one wonder.
May I suggest this thread is better dead than read?
Hilzoy,
I believe von has explained his reasoning. You don’t agree with it nor do I, but I think asking for further substantiation will only launch a new round of talking past each other.
“The specific charge that McCain made repeatedly in the weeks before the convention, and that Palin made in a speech written by McCain’s staff”
And McCain and his surrogates keep arguing that, unlike Obama, who would rather lose a war than lose an election, he, McCain, would rather lose an election than win a war.
That’s a clear straightforward argument: Obama puts himself above country. McCain and the Republicans: Country First.
(My first response to that slogan was to naively see it as part of the response to the hurricane, but it’s obviously a key part of their entire narrative of how they put country first, in comparison to those slimy Democrats and ambititious [unlike McCain] Obama.)
“but I think asking for further substantiation will only launch a new round of talking past each other.”
Aww, but I just love it when Von tells me so helpfully to quit being obtuse, and that I’m “disingenous” (at least accuse me of being disingenuous, please), and otherwise accuses me of writing in bad faith. I always love that.
I must work harder on being less obtuse and disin… whatever.
I assumed that McCain, as his party’s nominee, is in control of what happens at his convention
My guess is that this is not true, or is only true to a very limited degree.
The man can’t pick his own VP nominee. He has to move down to the B or C list to find someone who will pass the smell test with the religious yahoos who have the Republicans by the short and curlies these days.
I don’t know how the internal dynamics of the convention played out, but I find it totally believable that McCain’s control over the convention agenda was limited.
He’s no longer his own man.
Thanks –
Phil: I assume, bc, that you don’t want your taxes to be $0
I’m not sure “want” is how I’d put it. I expect to pay taxes for necessary services from the government. I expect to pay taxes for some services that aren’t necessary. I’d agree with Tony that it’s a duty of each citizen to pay his or her fair share. I just disagree with Tony that cutting taxes and saying “country first” is hypocritical unless we’re talking about the necessary services.
I used $10k as an abstract number that has nothing to do with my tax burden. I intentionally did that. Let’s just say I’m in Obama (and DEFINITELY in McCain’s) middle class. I’d prefer to do with more of my own money what I want.
And I thought of what you said before you said it. I asked myself even as I made the post what I would do if my tax burden were lighter. I’m sure I’d donate more, but how much more?
One solution I’d love to see considered (and this is coming off the top of my head in response to your post) is a dollar-for-dollar tax credit up to a certain point for charitable contributions, maybe restricting it to certain areas like hunger, poverty, etc. See how that works.
and all you’re giving is to “your church and a couple charities,” well, you might want to re-examine your premises.
I’m not one to talk about my giving much. so let’s just say your apparent assumption is incorrect. You’re assuming amount of giving somehow equates to the number of charities.
Plus, I give a lot of my time, which Tony finds economically inefficient. I respect his point of view. That’s not me, and it’s why I would rather put my money where I see fit after necessary services. And it’s a matter of philosophy and economic efficiency. the government is simply not efficient for many tasks.
Let’s just say I’m in Obama (and DEFINITELY in McCain’s) middle class.
Not to pile on, but what do you think is the definition of middle class and do you think that Obama’s and McCain’s definitions are the same or not. I’m headed out the door now, but I have an idea of Obama’s definition, but I have no idea of McCain’s and I’ll try and get some cites to illustrate that later.
Not arguing the banning, hilzoy. I meant to say: it had undoubtedly broken the posting rules in between when I last was paying attention (Friday afternoon) and the time of banning, but I wasn’t around to take action on it. As far as I’m concerned, it became dismissible when it started with that wrong-by-definition business.
Maybe I should consider another career choice, like engineering or something.
bc: I’d agree with Tony that it’s a duty of each citizen to pay his or her fair share. I just disagree with Tony that cutting taxes and saying “country first” is hypocritical unless we’re talking about the necessary services.
I’m not interested in paying for unnecessary services either, bc. But how do you propose to define “unneccessary” in a democracy where some people think we need Star Wars and some people don’t, some think we need OSHA and some don’t?
I can absolutely respect the proposition which (I believe) is the one you’re really offering: that my taxes, as well as yours, should be reduced. I cannot call that a selfish proposition by any stretch. But the burden is then on you (and by extension John McCain) to explain just what spending you would cut. Airy generalities like “pork” don’t do it for me.
Just for laughs, what do you think would happen if we taxpayers had the OPTION to “earmark” our tax payments? Say, the option to earmark that fraction of our tax payments which corresponds to the “discretionary” fraction of the federal budget. Say we did it by cabinet department, or something. Would people leap at the chance? Or would they decline the option and just let (their) Congress decide?
–TP
Your comments here in this thread left me kinda puzzled I read through the whole thread but I felt you were deliberately obscure. Any chance you could put in a clarification?
whoops
My comment above was for the benefit of liberal japonicus.
He was avoiding talking about Andrew Olmsted, Frank. Von specifically mentioned Andrew in one of his responses.
Incidentally, are you one of the Franks who has commented here before, and if so, which one?
Oh, that’s right, you’d have to identify each and every comment you’ve ever made, and disclaim all the other comments by a “Frank”; might be a bit of a bother.
Possibly you might want to try a less generic handle?
Came back to post what I think is Obama’s definition of the middle class, which, looking at his issues page on social security, looks to have a top end of $250,000 and a lower limit of anywhere from $50,000 to $80,000 (the point where various plans kick in)
(here is the webpage where two points are $50,000 and $75,000 and here is Joe Biden talking about social security where he mentions $80,000)
Frank, Gary is correct, and I hope that you can maybe take a look at the sidebar and investigate some of the posts and that will be sufficient. You are also welcome to come over the Taking it Outside, which is kind of a junglegym outside the ObWi school house and ask over there. Thanks.
Slarti: I didn’t think you were arguing; I was just explaining.
It’s a sentiment from November 2003
Supporting a policy that McCain continued to support through 2008. Could I use that statement to understand his support for that policy in December of 2003 (when he continued to support leaving troop levels in Afghanistan the same)? In January of 2004? November of 2004?
When does the statement expire, if his support for the policy is ongoing?
As an aside, I had no idea that Obama was arguing for more troops in Afghanistan and taking the battle to Pakistan in November 2003…
I had no idea that, when people made statements supporting policy choices, those statements expired as soon as the words finished leaving their mouths- and it because a *lie* to attribute their ongoing support of that position to their stated reasons for doing so.
As for John McCain hedging his bets and talking out of both sides of his mouth (ie ‘I am concerned….we may muddle through. So Im guardedly optimistic…. So I guess I can say to you that we probably need more money’). No matter what happened, he’d be proven right. And here you are, using his correct prediction (‘I am concerned…. we probably need more money’) to prove that his prediction of success with the current troop/funding levels isn’t really what he meant.
Not to pile on, but what do you think is the definition of middle class . . .
I understood Obama at $250k and McCain higher. I’m not sure where they put the lower limits, but my definition would include number of family members, cost of living where one lives, etc. But I’m not necessarily proposing putting that in the tax code.
Just for laughs,
Now you’re just teasing me! 🙂 I think it would be really informative for multiple reasons.
As for spending cuts, don’t get me going. Bye, bye, DOE, just because it’s currently on my mind
Could you outline for us precisely which things the Department of Energy does that you think are unnecessary and wasteful, and how you would propose to have its functions which are not unnecessary and wasteful fulfilled in its absence? Thanks in advance!
Funny, I thought he meant the Department of Education………
I say we need more nuclear-powered children, but safer ones.
I mean, perhaps you think the security of our nuclear arsenal or the collection and forecasting of sound data for the proper formation of energy policy are not proper functions of government, but that seems kind of, well, silly.
Ah, that would make more sense, JanieM. Properly educating US children is one of those things hardcore Republicans tend to be opposed to. So long, Pell grants!
In fairness, Phil, one can be for many or most or perhaps even all of the functions of a given department without necessarily believing that the current set of groupings is ideal or even necessary.
When each Department was created, few, if any, new functions were added, but rather it was usually a new conglomerations of functions taken from other Departments.
I’m not convinced that the Department of Homeland Security is necessary or the best set of groupings or the best means of organizing the organizations within it, but that doesn’t mean I want to eliminate the Coast Guard, or eliminate the Federal Computer Incident Response Center, or get rid of the federal government having a role in emergencies. Etc.
Neither did having the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare mean that someone opposed education, or a federal role in it.
Properly educating US children is one of those things hardcore Republicans tend to be opposed to.
Not true. If the most significant problem with education is Republicans, then Chicago schools, run and financed by Democrats at city, county, and state levels, should be wonderful instead of abysmal. That $100 million or so of Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Obama and Ayers managed didn’t get spent so well either, by the way. At funding levels of 10 grand per student per year, the highest tax rates in the country, Chicago should expect better results.
“If the most significant problem with education is Republicans,” then you should take it up with whichever voice in your head ventured that thought.
bc:
If I was really teasing you, I’d have proposed we let taxpayers earmark their tax payments by party. Think how much better you would feel about federal taxes if you were, say, an R living in a mostly D district. You are helpless to prevent your neighbors from electing a D to Congress. But, come April 15, you get to earmark your taxes to the R-controlled fraction of the budget 🙂
Gary:
I say we need more nuclear-powered children, but safer ones.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
-TP
Also, they should get offa my lawn.
Airy generalities like “pork” don’t do it for me.
Me either. But to be fair, when Obama said in his acceptance speech that he was going to find the money for new programs by eliminating waste, I cringed. It’s as big a piece of bs as “pork,” and as often repeated. Sure, there’s some slack and inefficiency in any large institution, and at any given time some bureaus and divisions are underused, but as pointed out upthread, the vast majority of spending is entitlement programs, defense, and debt maintenance. Transferring a few staffers to busier areas there won’t help much, and I strongly suspect we are long past the point where the savings in supplies, maintenance costs, etc., will be greater than the cost of an audit. You would probably save more money by eliminating some of the busywork we already created in the name of checking costs. Either way, not much.
Fortunately, that was only a minor part of Obama’s funding plan. I don’t know where the rest of McCain’s funding is supposed to come from. Perhaps we could sell Alaska back?
Also, they should get offa my lawn.
Oh, I think that they do stay off the lawn for the most part, except for von and occasionally Sebastian. At Obsidian Wings, “Things are more like the way they are today than they have ever been before.”
In fairness, Phil, one can be for many or most or perhaps even all of the functions of a given department without necessarily believing that the current set of groupings is ideal or even necessary.
When each Department was created, few, if any, new functions were added, but rather it was usually a new conglomerations of functions taken from other Departments.
That’s great, Gary, and I’m well aware of the history of our cabinet departments. Notwithstanding that:
1) That’s rarely what the “reduce the federal budget” types are talking about when they talk about reduction. They’re talking about the wholesale elimination of functions from federal purview, as I’m sure you’re aware, and as I’m sure bc is.
2) Even if he weren’t, returning those functions to other departments and groupings still requires paying for them. All that does is shift money from one budget item to another, which, again, is not what bc is talking about. He’s talking about reducing his taxes. Shifting the responsibility for nuclear arsenal safety from Energy to Defense would not reduce his taxes one shiny penny.
“That’s rarely what the ‘reduce the federal budget’ types are talking about when they talk about reduction.”
That’s nice, but you’re responding to bc, not to a “type.” It might be useful to first ask him what he thinks, rather than responding to what you imagine his “type” might think.
Given that bc’s comment that prompted my comment was “Bye, bye, DOE,” Gary, I think I can make an educated fncking guess here, thankyouverymuch. Can you maybe grant me some credit for being able to read my goddamned native language every once in a fncking while? Maybe?
Or maybe can you think of an interpretation of “Bye, bye, DOE,” in conjunction with bc’s already-expressed political opinions, that means “returning DOE’s functions to other federal agencies?” Good luck!
Phil, you’re welcome to make whatever guesses you like, and respond as you like. Just as I am, as well.
I have no idea what policies bc may or may not be advocating with “Bye, bye, DOE,” and I’m less inclined to guess, and more inclined to ask. If you don’t think that’s a good idea, fine.
I don’t know if bc is reading such an ancient thread as this, but if he is: bc, can you elaborate on what you meant, please?