Bush in 2000 vs McCain in 2008: Have We Learned Anything?

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 14:07


In 2000, George Bush came into office under the vague notion that he wasn't very different than Al Gore.  The country was fairly prosperous and it would stay that way, with a few domestic tweaks.  We were wrong about Bush and his character.  I keep hearing from liberals that what matters is beating Clinton and/or Obama, and that McCain just isn't that bad.

It sounds eerily like 2000 and our impressions of Bush.  And it's not true, as Sam Stein notes.

For the third time in two days, the Arizona Republican has pushed the definitively false statement that the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was getting assistance from Iran, even though he was publicly ridiculed for the same false assertion on Tuesday.

This time, in a statement from his campaign honoring the fifth year anniversary of the war, McCain wrote:

"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated."

On Tuesday, the senator, appearing in Israel, made a nearly identical assertion that al-Qaeda was leaving Iraq to retool and regroup in Iran.

It was, he said, "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was accompanying McCain on the trip, was forced to lean over and whisper in McCain's ear that it was Shiite extremists, not Sunni al-Qaeda, that was going to predominantly Shiite Iran.

It's common knowledge in the Senate that, aside from work he's done in the Armed Services Committee, McCain doesn't know anything about anything.  He's basically an ignorant old man that understands the military and nothing else, including diplomacy, economics, or any other aspect of national security.  He is announcing that he wants to stay 100 years in Iraq, and his cabinet choices will reveal that he is intent on a war with Iran.

A lot of savvy unaligned progressives who aren't backing either nominee are beginning to get really scared about McCain's capacity to get into office as a moderate.  I don't mean to pull the panic button, because he is a weak nominee.  He can't raise money and he's old and cranky, and he'll be facing an energized progressive movement.  But this guy is an extremist and it's about time people focus a little less on Clinton-Obama and more on McCain.

Frankly, there's little most of us can do about the primary contest, so it's better to focus downticket and on McCain anyway.

Matt Stoller :: Bush in 2000 vs McCain in 2008: Have We Learned Anything?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Count me as one of those people who is scared of McCain "the moderate" (4.00 / 2)
If people really paid attension that he wouldn't have a snowball's in hell. But, they don't. And no, they really don't learn anything from the past. if they did, after the Vietnam, Iraq would have never happened.

You are right we need to train our sights on McCain (4.00 / 1)
And, especially, focus on down-ballot races (remember Q1 ends in 12 days, and a big push for current and new Blue Majority candidates is needed).

But I think McCain is really beatable, and this latest evidence of his ignorance is giving me much hope.  I keep imagining him in a real presidential debate, not one of those AEI panel discussions that passed for GOP debates.  A real debate with questioners asking him for his policies on the housing crisis, what to do about reregulating the financial industry, how his preference for more tax cuts will affect Social Security and even detailed questions about Iraq.  The guy's age and ignorance are going to show.  Maybe even his temper.

As Obama said in his speech today, we can't defeat McCain with a candidate arguing more experience in Washington, because he wins that argument.  We win only with a candidate challenging the DC consensus on the warand on national security priorities, and one fporcefully advocating for sustainable economic and energy policies.

I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but we are losing important opportunities to challenge and expose John McCain for the ignorant and angry old man, as you suggest, and we will do best with the candidate who can draw the biggest contrasts with him.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


McCain's negatives are higher than many people think (4.00 / 1)
A year ago, I was very concerned about the prospects of McCain as the nominee. Even when his campaign looked doomed, it was clear that he had the only lasting power, the least distatsteful candidate to the GOP base. The others had far too high of negatives.

In the past two months, I've become much less worried about McCain. He's continuing to make colossal blunders, and it should make our job getting our nominee (whomever that is) elected. Even here in MI, where McCain is often liked by conservatives, I don't know one Republican who is excited by his campaign. I know many that said "heck, I'll even vote for Hillary before I vote for McCain". They're enormously turned off by McCain's support of the war, his age, his declarations that he "doesn't know much about the economy". Core parts of the GOP base will vote for him, no matter who the Democratic party nominee is. But, I don't see people coming out in droves to support him.

McCain needs a good VP pick to have a chance in this race. The way he's been positioning himself as of late, I don't think he has any idea of how to win this campaign. His foot keeps going deeper down his throat.


[ Parent ]
Well, (0.00 / 0)
at least Mr. Obama addressed Iraq today and is expecting to address it tomorrow as well as conflate it with economic concerns.  Perhaps, now that he has begun the process of serious single issue speeches, he is intending to continue to try to drive the campaign into the Republican side.

What did Mrs. Clinton say yesterday when she was too busy to read the transcript of Mr. Obama's race speech?


RE:Well (0.00 / 0)
She did give a speech on Iraq a couple of days ago. The text is here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

For comparison, Obama's text is here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page...

Obama is on the Yahoo! News front page under the headline "Obama belittles McCain for confusing extremists" for this section of the speech:

Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.


[ Parent ]
St John's Halo (0.00 / 0)
Yes, he's a scary SOB.  

That said, he wasn't much different in 2004 when he was the Dems top choice for the VP slot.

That's water under the bridge of course.

But it matters in that it casts a glaring light on the hypocrisy of those who have been pushing the DP to remake itself in McCain's (supposedly moderate) image for the last three decades.

They, and there are plenty of them in the party leadership, are in no position to expose McCain for the militarist lunatic he actually is.


Attack The Media (0.00 / 0)
We need to attack the media as a way to attack McSame.  We need to pound this over and over and over again that the same folks who sold us a bill of goods with Bush are trying to do the same thing again.

This will be far more effective than just going after McSame alone.

And, of course, it will also be the truth.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search