Thank you (4.00 / 1)

for finally saying it!

I don't think that we are going to beat John McCain in November if our nominee prefaces every single comment about McCain with a paean describing how much s/he respects McCain, how much of a war hero McCain is

Democrats CAN'T win by giving McCain an obligatory blow job before every reference to him. That may be a crass way to put it, but it's damn true about what they've been doing.

Does Pepsi preface all their commercials with glorious statements about how much they respect and admire Coke? No, of course not. That would be, you know, stupid!

---

by: Oaktown Girl @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM CDT

If I remember rightly Bush went out of his way several times... (0.00 / 0)

...to say he respected Kerry's service - it wasn't him or even his campaign that was stoking the Swift Boat crap, at least overtly. I see a similar picture this time with McCain as our 527's attack him leaving the Dem nominee to keep his hands clean. The first Obama quote you posted is fine, the second is little too much, but at least he isn't saying what a wonderful CiC he would be.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM CDT

Why even say anything about McCain? .. (0.00 / 0)

is it some BS crap that all Senators say sweet nothings about each other? .. will Coburn and Inhofe say Obama is such a great statesman and Senator? .. it's one of the downsides of having Senators being the nominee ... the kissing each others ass

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:09:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fact is people believe he is all those things... (0.00 / 0)

...whether they say it or not (which probably supports the idea of saying nothing). They are saying he may be this and that but despite of it he is wrong on the issues and the wrong choice for this election.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:17:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

McCain's military service needs to be attacked, it became fair game when the Republicans did it in 2004. Swift boat his ass. The guy can't even reach his arms over his shoulders, and when things get bad he screams and whines like a baby. Completely unfit to be commander in chief.

Any good attack needs to go after the candidate's spouse too, and good god Cindy McCain was tailor-made for that. She steals drugs from a charity, a charity for kids, and the guy that reports it gets fired. Never mind that, just look at her. And what kind of asshole abandons his wife and kids for a woman 18 years younger than him?

When Fox News says this is unfair or we hate the military or whatever crap they're going to say no matter what we do, tell them they should have thought of that before they attacked Kerry.

---

by: Jack McMillin @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:15:33 PM CDT

I could be wrong but I think that would backfire (0.00 / 0)

They always seem to get away with anything while Dems get hurt be things like the Wellstone memorial service. Unfair but true. I would prefer the strategy of ignoring his distant past and attacking him on Iraq and his conservative positions on issue after issue. He is no moderate. People just assume things about him because the media have constantly portrayed him as a maverick.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:28:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is part of the same (4.00 / 2)

dem insecurity that causes them to preface every anti-war statement with the clause "Of course I support the troops, but..."

It is because many dems have bought into the Republican meme that we are somehow unpatriotic if we don't wave pom-poms for every war, wear flag-lapel pins, and swoon every time a military uniform enters the room.  Look at the fools the dems made of themselves over the Moveon-Petreus betray-us flap.  

Repugs question dems patriotism in what should be patently laughable ways, and dems fall all over themselves trying to "prove" their re-white-and-blue bona fides.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

 

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

---

by: leftvet @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:20:38 PM CDT

I like what McGovern had to say. (4.00 / 2)

This is the greatest country on the face of the earth, I still think that. But what a tragedy to have our reputation brought to the lowest level that any of us can remember. I'm sometimes charged with being a softie about war and national security.  

Well, let me take one minute on that. When I was 19, Pearl Harbor was attacked. A few days later, I dropped out of college and volunteered to fly in the Army air corps and flew 35 missions over the most heavily defended targets in Europe. I've always been proud of that service in World War II; I've never had one day of regret that I participated in helping to smash Hitler's war machine. And let me just add this. There's never been a day in my adult life when I wouldn't have gladly sacrificed that life if America was faced with a genuine threat to our national security.

Some years ago, I was on one of the networks with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, one of the chief architects of the war in Vietnam. But the reason I was on television that night is he had just come out with a new book saying that the war was not only it was a mistake, in his words it was a tragic mistake. Well, in the course of that three-way discussion, which included in addition to Secretary McNamara and myself, Sen. John McCain. And in McCain's first opening remarks, he said, well we all know that George McGovern knows little about national defense.  

Let me tell you what I would say to John McCain: neither of us is an expert on national defense.  It's true that you went to one of the service academies but you were in the bottom of the class. It's true that you were a pilot in Vietnam, that you were shot down and spent most of the war in prison and we all sympathize with that and honor you for your courage.  But you and I both had these battle experiences, you as a Navy fighter plane, I as an army bomber. I am not going to criticize your war record and your knowledge of national security but I don't want you criticizing mine either.  

If I'd be allowed just one little dig at Senator McCain, since he gave me. I would say, 'John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.'

(from here)

---

by: neutron @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:41:55 PM CDT

Youtube? (4.00 / 1)

I'm at work, so I can't get to Youtube, but a clip of that could be pretty damn effective if it went viral.  That last line, especially, since it's framed as a response to an attack by McCain in the first place, which shows that he has no issues attacking a veteran himself.  Plays into a lot of the concerns people have about him.

---

by: L Boom @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:23:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ugh! (4.00 / 1)

After reading that first paragraph, I feel violently ill.

---

by: Sean Robertson @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:45:15 PM CDT

With these photos still freely available on the web (0.00 / 0)

you'd think even spineless Congressional Democrats could convince themselves that they aren't at risk of being seen as anti-military (effectively, at least):

http://static.flickr.com/18/68...

---

by: BigTuna @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:51:29 PM CDT

I disagree (4.00 / 3)

I think this is the right move... say "sure, McCain's a war hero, and I respect his service, BUT-"

We DO NOT and SHOULD NOT swiftboat McCain.  We can go after him for how crazy his ideas are, which is what I see Obama starting to do, and how he wouldn't make a good President ("the wrong side of history" is a good turn of phrase).  But his war record should be off-limits.

We are not Republicans, dammit.

---

by: themann1086 @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:52:50 PM CDT

Seriously (0.00 / 0)

I'm constantly amazed that people are angry when Democrats speak like reasonable, nice people.  

This is who we are, or who we should be.  We're going to win because we're right, not because we can be equally exploitative of people's worst elements.  John McCain does deserve plaudits for his history of service, and I'm glad that our party is full of people who are good enough folks that they can admit this while still making the case for why that does not qualify him to be president.

---

by: Baldrick @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:59:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

An addendum (0.00 / 0)

I also think there's a difference between the candidate for president and Democratic activists.  

I don't see any problem with us folks here talking a little bit of trash about McCain, as long as its not too far over the top.  But there is - and should be - a different standard for someone who is trying to make the case for leading the most powerful nation in the world, and a democracy to boot.

Clinton suggesting that McCain is more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than Obama is clearly beyond the pale, because it suggests he's more qualified. But simply pointing out that they respect him, while also arguing that he is not qualified to run the country, is perfectly reasonable.

---

by: Baldrick @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:03:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With one exception (4.00 / 1)

"I honor John McCain for his half-century of service" should be kept in our candidate's vocabulary, especially when followed by clever lines about old vs new, change vs status quo, and 8 more years of the same old politics.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:04:07 PM CDT

hero yes, foreign policy expert no (0.00 / 0)

What irritates me is not celebrating him as a war hero after all, he is a war hero. American doesn't need 2 swift boating political parties. Leave that junk to the GOP. What gets me is when Democrats especially Clinton grant McCain foreign policy expertise (passing the C-in-C test) on the basis of having served in Vietnam decades ago and having been in Washington for 3 decades. That really undermines the "but" they then follow with pointing out how McCain is wrong on just about every current foreign policy issue. You can't say McCain is a such an established foreign policy expert and then turn around and convince voters that he is all wrong on everything.

---

by: redwards95 @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:06:05 PM CDT

Heros of the Vietnam war (0.00 / 0)

It is so sickening to hear Americans, even from the left, to genuinely believe that McCain is somehow a "hero" deserving of great respect and admiration.

The Vietnam war was an extremely misguided venture, a war that was both counterproductive and tremendously bloody, killing millions of innocent civilians for no gain or good reason at all.

But that it was this context in which McCain bombed people and got shot down just fades into the background. Somehow, it is so admirable to risk your life for AMERICA (OH LAND OF THE FREE! a tear rolls down my cheek), whatever the actual context and cause, whatever the person actually did.

I can recognise that it took a lot of physical endurance and courage to survive the prison camp, but it's not something I'll ever admire him for or call him a "hero" (with its implications of justice and moral righteousness). He fought and suffered for something despicable and is apparantly proud of it.

Even most "progressive" Americans will apparently never wean themselves off their very high self-regard, exchange their unthinking patriotism for a little bit of realism and self-doubt, it's really disgusting.  

---

by: jackenbox @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:31:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong (0.00 / 0)

What's disgusting is that you're blaming McCain for the politics of a war that he had no say in.  He was called to duty and he served, period.  It's valid to debate whether or not someone can be a hero for doing their job, but your point is that he's not a hero because the war was unjust.  It makes no sense, and stupid statements like yours lend credence to conservative charges of the "loony anti-military left".

(Be pissed at him for supporting torture after being tortured.   Or choose any one of the thousand valid reasons.)

---

by: BigTuna @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 16:06:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

reply (0.00 / 0)

I come from a country that has fought a deeply unjust war in the early part of the 20th century, even worse than Vietnam. We DO NOT regard the soldiers who fought in it as "heros", even if they "just did their duty" (and how often have we heard that phrase as an excuse?). Many may be tragic figures who suffered unjust fates; many showed great endurance and personal bravery, but "heros" they were not. Heros were those who resisted.

There is honor and heroism in fighting for a just cause, there is nothing heroic and no honor about fighting for an unjust one. No honor in fighting in Vietnam, no honor about fighting in Iraq.

Even if you have no influence on political decision making, you still have personal responsibility. And if you decide to go and fight a counterproductive war that not only kills uncounted innocents but also harms your country's safety and worldwide standing, then you may do this due to a tragic tradeoff ("I have to think of my family, and my little contribution won't change anything anyway" etc.), but it's not something you should be admired for.

And why should my opinion be "anti-military" and "looney"? The only argument I can think of is that "there are some situations in which militaries are important (self defense), and if you don't follow orders all the time, you won't follow orders when its really needed. Hence the honor of duty." Well, one may argue about the validity of this point, but even if one assumes it is true, it is a purely functional argument and doesn't confer any real "honor" or "heroism" on those people who actually go and fight in unjust wars. In particular if they are volunteers like John McCain.

But you are right to fear such arguments in terms of political backlash. Like all other nations, Americans are too full of themselves to ever face up to the realities of what is actually being done in their name.

Instead there are only heros that have been misled by a few miscreants at the very, very top. Everyone else only followed orders and once you elect the youthful Saint of Change, you shall receive absolution. That's why you crave him so, isn't it?  

---

by: jackenbox @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:27:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I denounce and reject this (0.00 / 0)

No honor in fighting in Vietnam, no honor about fighting in Iraq.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  On so many levels.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 21:36:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

reply2 (0.00 / 0)

It's a bit strange that you don't care to mention even one of your many levels.

What then is your argument? That in every war individuals show  enormous endurance and bravery and risk and often give their life for their comrades. And that makes them heros, no matter what the larger context is? Is heroism really the same as personal bravery and tragedy? How can you separate their individual actions from the fact that they are directly contributing to an entirely harmful and counterproductive enterprise? This is not some abstract point, it's a simple fact. I can't, and I don't care for your patriotism or fear of right-wing denunciation. So whatever, denounce and reject. I am untounched if you don't even argue your point.  

---

by: jackenbox @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 00:11:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

levels (0.00 / 0)

There is a sacred trust between the civilian government and the military.  The military caries out the operations requested by the civilian government, not matter how hard the task.  In return, the civilian government only uses the military when absolutely necessary and only as a last resort.

Bush broke that sacred trust.  Blaming the military is like blaming a women for being raped.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course -- see Abu Ghraib, for example -- but those exception are at the personal action level.  It is not the role of the service man or woman to question the overall strategy.

It is up to us voters to hold our government responsible, not one deployed on a military mission.

But I find blaming the troops for even showing up to be disgusting and not really worthy of making points.  Sorry, it almost seems as if your goal is to show that conservatives are right about us liberals or something.

I believe that action in Afghanistan is justified but Iraq was a huge strategic blunder.  Am I supposed to hold differing views of those that serve in one conflict but not the other?  I think not.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:17:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

reply3 (0.00 / 0)

> Blaming the military is like blaming a women for being
> raped.

That is a flawed analogy that understates the actual moral ambiguity in the case of the military. A raped woman did not do harm unto others, she truly is a pure victim of violence. John McCain and the men fighting in Iraq and Vietnam, on the other hand, were part of an extremely offensive, brutal and counterproductive infliction of violence onto another country and large parts of its civilian population. This is a simple fact, a clear difference, and hence there is no easy moral equivalency between a betrayed military and the case of rape.

I certainly recognise that your functional argument is a very good one. To a large extent you need a military that will carry out orders unquestionably in order to make it an operational and controllable tool of politics and prevent it from becoming an independent and unaccountable force.However, as history's most extreme examples have shown, this is not true in all situations.  There certainly are situations when (to use your pseudo-religious language) the "sacred trust" is broken in a fundamental way by the civilian commanders. And in such situations the pure "I only follow orders, hence I am blameless and my service heroic" logic breaks down. Personal responsibility re-emerges.

Your Abu Graib example shows this perfectly, and your attempt to reduce it to a "personal action level" is a pretty desperate and failed attempt to limit the extent by which it undermines your own argument. For as we know now, the torturing and abuses were not simply decisions made by individuals. Instead, they were planned in detail at the very top of the civilian command chain and then implemented by the foot soldiers. To the extent that you recognise that the soldiers implementing this strategy were wrong, to blame and not "heroic" in their service, you admit that there are limits to passing off the blame of participating in unjust causes as simply "following orders".

In any case, don't get me wrong. You may well be right that the functional argument trumps everything else. I don't even want to argue that the military as an institution should develop independent decision making powers and a "moral conscience" - that would almost certainly backfire. I also recognise that many people face impossible trade-offs and are bound by real life constraints to go and fight whatever the cause (such as the need to feed a family, or simply a lack of information about the nature of what they will fight in etc.). I don't really want to actively "blame" them for it, there's a good chance I couldn't act differently although I'd certainly try to avoid being employed in a war like Iraq.

So while I don't want to reproach and blame in a blanket manner, I do want to withhold heroic status from those who are actually employed in the service of unjust causes. I really think you cannot simply ignore the actual results and meaning of soldiers' aggregate actions. Those soldiers who fight in unjust causes, but who are honest, hardworking, showing great compassion for their fellow soldiers, exceptional bravery and maybe even try to minimise unnecessary harm are certainly tragic figures deserving of respect. But I still doubt that what they do is truly "honorable", certainly it is nothing as exalted as "heroic". This outcome is certainly extremely unjust and unfair, but that's just how it is.

I don't think John McCain is a "hero" for his role in helping to destroy Vietnam, just as I don't think that the Japanese soldiers who invaded the islands before Alaska were "heros" in the Second World War. You are not a hero if you fight for an unjust cause. I strongly suspect that you would not confer "heroic" status automatically on soldiers in other country's militaries either.

But yes, mine is an abstract and academic argument and in the current circumstances of the United States, it would be politically damaging. I am not arguing that.

---

by: jackenbox @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hero (0.00 / 0)

I strongly suspect that you would not confer "heroic" status automatically on soldiers in other country's militaries either.

Well, "hero" is one of those loaded words (like "genius") that means more than its dictionary definition at times.  At other times it is a polite and overused term for someone who exposed themselves to danger.

I agree with you a bit on the positive connotations of military service.  Not everyone who fights automatically deserves to be called a hero the first sense of word.

But my real criticism is going the opposite direction and implying that those who fight in unjust wars deserve part of the blame.  Do you blame the Kamikazes for Japan's actions in WWII?  Do you blame the drafted German fighting on the front line for all the atrocities committed by the Nazis?  That would be a ridiculous notion.

Individuals can and should be held accountable for their specific actions.  As we both know, "just following orders" only gets you so far.  But just can't blame the individual for a failure at the strategic level.  You may just be making an "academic" argument, but it is a bad one.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two - Pronged, Soft Sell, Indirect Approach Using Torture (0.00 / 0)

1) Highlight psychological studies showing the long-term negative impact of torture.  Emphasize those symptoms that are a) problematic in a President, b) manifest by hot-temper and volatility, and c) synergetic with age-related neurodenergative diseases.

2) Tie to Condi Rice (pre-emptive strike on a late-entering VP choice to salvage a flagging McCain candidacy) and Bush Inc. legal eagles - like John Yoo.

3) Express sympathy for McCain for having under-gone torture while serving our nation.

4) (optional) Question whether his previous experience has affected his decision-making/logic processes, siting specific examples.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:49:10 PM CDT

Dirty hands (0.00 / 0)

Matt, you are clearly mis-remembering the Republican attacks from 2004.  Bush did not make the attacks.  He generally stated positive things about Kerry, in the same vain Obama does about McCain, and then attacked Kerry for being too liberal, etc.  Now Bush never attacked the Swiftboaters, of course, and when asked would just say stuff like "I don't know, I haven't looked into it" that would keep the story going without getting his hands dirty.  But Bush always avoided getting his hands dirty and let the scrubs do all the messy work.

I actually love Obama's "half century of service" line because it reminds voters how old McCain is, which polls show is a real problem.

BTW, from what I read, Obama and McCain actually hate each other due to disagreements on reform and Obama's refusal to declare McCain the king of all things bipartisan and the one true reformer.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 15:10:32 PM CDT

Kinda like McCain (0.00 / 0)

Being turned down when he asks that the NC GOP not run the anti-Obama commercials, eh?  

Its win-win for McLame - Obama gets burned and he appears holier than THEM.

Some Lefty 527 should respond with a "Does John McCain have PTSD?" campaign that Clinton and Obama can similarly disown and rail against.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 18:18:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (0.00 / 0)

This isn't to say Obama can't run negative ads against McCain, he can and should, but there is a line better crossed by outside groups.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 21:37:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This Might Not Be So Bad (0.00 / 0)

If they said something like, "I have the greatest respect for John McCain's service to his country.  Unlike the Republican Party, Democrats do not believe in maligning war heroes just because they are members of a different political party.  Of course, it's understandable, since most Republican officeholdes and political operatives believe that the definition of patriotism is sending someone else off to die.  Unlike most of them, John McCain, has put his own life on the line. But he has the same exact short-sighted policies that have sent thousands of Americans off to die for a pack of lies told by the Bush Administration.  And this election is not about the past, but the future."

It's still to wishy-washy for my taste.  But compared to what we ARE getting, it would be music to my ears.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 15:22:10 PM CDT

Loving Saint John (0.00 / 0)

John McCain is now taking 3 of 4 votes in his Republican primary. It is possible that if we had photos of Hilary giving him a big wet one on the lips every week from now to November, it will maintain the 25% of Republicans over the top crazy at him.

---

by: wind off the lake @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 15:50:39 PM CDT

I don't see in your list (0.00 / 0)

the very recent comment from Obama where he said that both he and Hillary would be better than Bush, AND SO WOULD MCCAIN.

Horrendous.

---

by: sarany @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 15:56:11 PM CDT

haven't you figured out yet (0.00 / 0)

that the Democrats are going to lose this election?

i think 2008 is our last chance, in a lot of ways. we've got maybe 10 years on global warming to head off the most severe problems. the world is going to see us go to the bomb-bomb guy  AGAIN and make permanent arrangements to contain us. the wingnut Supreme Court will lock-in the Royalist perversions of the legal system. people will just come to accept that the government spies on us and tortures people and, well, that's the world. we stop being a country governed by law, and fully become dependent on the character of our Leader. so that even if we get a Good Leader in 2012 or 2016, whatever they do will go when they go.

so i was really hoping that whoever we ended up nominating would get that this is serious. that it's bigger than their personal goals, bigger than their dignity. but i don't see that. maybe it will get better. maybe. but to win they have to beat McCain AND the Republicans AND the media AND half of their own party leadership. too many paths to defeat.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 16:05:52 PM CDT

Mark my words (0.00 / 0)

They're true, because they're on the internet.

If the Democrats fuck this one up - and today's revelation from Schumer about universal health care does not bode well for the future - I will throw my full support behind a newly-emergent Progressive Party (which I will aid in emerging if necessary).  

I'm an ex-Republican, and only recently did I throw my lot in with the Democrats.  Can't say I've been terribly impressed.  If they cannot demonstrate in this election - the most populist in my recollection - that they can resist the harmful influence of big business in favor of working for the people, then I have no hope or expectation that they ever will.

---

by: BigTuna @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 16:16:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I should add (0.00 / 0)

I left the GOP in the mid 90's.  Didn't want to leave even the slightest impression that I supported anything these assclowns have done in the last decade.

---

by: BigTuna @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 16:17:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope not all liberals are like you guys (0.00 / 0)

(my apologies in advance - this is much longer than I orginally intended it to be)

As an independent voter (not conservative-independent or liberal-independent, just independent), I like to get my news from both conservative and liberal viewpoints because I figure the truth is going to be somewhere inbetween. I followed a link from realclearpolitics.com and was very uninspired by a lot of the comments here. With a few notable exceptions, the majority of the posters here seem far too irrational and downright mean for me respect their ideas. Try to make it look like McCain's war and torture experience gave him PTSD and his temper? This is just ridiculous, especially if you read his book Faith of My Fathers and see that his temper and rebeliousness started at a very young age (I've also read The Audacity of Hope, A Call to Service [Kerry's book], and Living History [Hillary's book])

You want to make him look like he's not an American Hero at all? Why don't you also try to find his forced confession that he gave his captors that he committed war crimes, and show it to convince people that he hates America? It's just as ridiculous and may be the only tactic that's even more transparent and more likely to backfire. How many blue-collar workers and war vets (or anybody at all) do you think would believe any of that? It would just look like a mean-spirited, deceptive, and irrational attempt to make A look like B, and it makes the authors people that no one wants to associate with. It makes you look like someone that has no respect for people in uniform. Think about Moveon.org's Betray-us "cooking the books" ad in the NYTimes. Its accusations were completely false as was shown when casualties continued to fall, even though the US military had very very little to do with the actual reductions. But it was still very wrong about Petreus giving false data about what was happening in Iraq, and Moveon was seen as an increasingly fringe and extremist group that shouldn't be believed or taken seriously.

Anyway, my point is that with all my reading of blogs and message boards, conservatives' comments are, generally speaking, commonly ignorant and misinformed (like believing that Obama really does hate America, or that he is somehow an elitist after being raised by a single mother and grandmother), while liberals' comments are more often attempts to make McCain look like something bad or terrifying, when they know that it's not really true.

The difference between these is that bringing out the truth can turn conservative views into liberal ones, but it also makes liberals look like mean liars. So my advice is to use TRUTH, not smear campaigns. If you really believe in the liberal agenda, listen to Obama's message and use facts and evidence to show why conservative fears are unfounded, not ugly politics. Otherwise, what makes you any better?

I already saw one million-dollar video saying that McCain is too old. It just makes the video-makers look mean and desperate, as if that's the only reason not to vote for McCain. If I keep seeing stupid messages like this, it'll be very hard for me to vote for the side that makes them.

---

by: jlarson105 @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 20:19:15 PM CDT

McLame? come on... (0.00 / 0)

another thing - "McLame" and "McSame" sound really dumb. They sound more like new McDonald's food items than a "clever" way to insult John McCain. You know how you feel bad for someone when they say "Hillary Rotten Clinton" because it sounds so stupid? That's what people are thinking when you say John McLame.

Do you even know where that comes from? A conservative nut named Mark Levin made it up a long time ago as a way to "cleverly" insult John McCain whenever he split with the loyal republican base. Listen to his radio show for 5 minutes and you'll know just how illogical and ridiculous his reasoning is. He also refers to the Wash Post paper as the "Washington Compost" whenever it writes something liberal. That's how dumb this guy is, and that's how dumb the name McLame is. McSame isn't too far behind, either.

---

by: jlarson105 @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 20:31:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know where you are coming from (4.00 / 1)

I largely agree with what you say, here.  

But you are incorrect about the politics.  Many years ago when Rush Limbaugh first came to my attention I believe he could only help liberals.  The guy was such an obvious blowhard, his ideas so bizarrely extreme it was clear to me that he would seriously damage everything he was associated with.  Clearly, Rush would be the ruin of conservatism.

But it didn't work out that way, did it?  In reality, we define what is moderate by looking at what is accepted by both extremes and finding the middle.  In order to push the middle, you need to push the extremes.  And yes, this includes attacking the other side an and so on.

And please don't confuse the anger you see here directed towards those that, if you think about it, really do deserve the anger, as just blind hatred.  The hate may be there, but it is certainly not blind.  What Bush and others have done to this country over the past 7 years deserves every bit of anger it can get.

But still, I get what you are saying.  I can't stand the most passionate, partisan stuff either; even when I agree with all the details.  But you know what, passion isn't a bad thing.  When I was in high school in the 80's the biggest problem was apathy.  I'll take the passion of those who care over apathy, any day.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 21:51:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its true (0.00 / 0)

"In order to push the middle, you need to push the extremes."

The right wing figured it out years ago.  The "extreme" views, words, and ideas are critical because they set the limits of what is "acceptable".  "Betray Us" was certainly rude - but it gave space to those more "mainstream" politicians and let probe a bit deeper.  (not that it made much difference in the end)

Plus, there's the notion of fighting fire with fire.

The SwiftBoaters didn't bat an eyelash before they tore Kerry's War Hero Status to bits - and they'll do it again.

Hell, they ARE doing it again - with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.  The TRUTH is that these two people's political views say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what kind of President Barack Obama might become.  But, sadly, that TRUTH has very little place in the debate - its so completely overlooked that anyone trying to tell it is drowned out by the noise machine.

So - there's the choice.  Play by the rules that the right wing uses, or stay out of the mud and try to take the high road to victory.  Of course, its not a 100% option - there's plenty of room for both approaches and a lot of grey in between.  Besides. McCain's a tough guy - he's been through this before - he got sliced up by the Bush League in 2000 - he knows this ain't a game of tiddly winks.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That makes sense, but... (0.00 / 0)

I guess the difference is that I haven't definitively decided who I will vote for in November. A little background: In terms of presidents I have liked/disliked from my life and from my reading, I really didn't like Carter, I liked Reagen, I was lukewarm on Bush 41, liked Clinton (moreso during his first term before his questionable pardons during the 2nd), favored Gore but approved of Bush 43 for the first year or two, then began very strongly disagreeing with him on just about everything. I really detest his value of loyalty over competency, and I see the same type of attitude in Hillary's campaign (ie calling Bill Richardson "Judas" just because Bill Clinton really helped Richardson's political career, as if that should prevent Richardson from thinking independently and fairly about who he thinks will be better for the country).

So basically, I have a favorable view of both McCain and Obama, and I really think they are both sincere about running different types of campaigns. I wouldn't be too bummed if either of them win. As Obama said, they are both much better than Bush 43. Maybe that's just me being naive, but looking at their whole political careers I think that they both are more interested in doing something to help their country in the best way they know how than achieving personal glory or power or whatever. I couldn't say that about very many of the candidates earlier in the primary.

Anyway, I think they are both doing much more to run cleaner campaigns than any other presidential politicians in the past - certainly much more than Bush 43 shrugging off the SwiftBoats or Kerry not saying anything about Dan Rather's false Bush documents. The 527s are certainly going to pop up, but at least they are both denouncing them when they cross the line. It's a small but significant improvement in my eyes. It just makes me sad to hear people planning how to smear the other guy when both sides have asked that it not happen.

---

by: jlarson105 @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 15:38:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and (0.00 / 0)

And the argument of the extremes really does make sense. I just personally have a problem with the idea that the ends justify questionable means.

---

by: jlarson105 @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 15:50:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see that point (0.00 / 0)

I'm not saying that the "extremes" are a good plan for the entire campaign - they cannot be the only tactic.

Actually, the NC GOP ad issue provides another approach - all a 527 needs to do is send out a press release saying that they PLAN to run an ad showing....whatever extremely negative aspect one can imagine, let the candidates sound-off in opposition, then never run the ad.

"Ends Justifies Means" - I don't see this issue that way.  The  "means" - extreme negative ads - is already part and parcel of American politics, no one is breaking new ground.  At the same time - I understand your point; its a slippery slope.

FWIW: I have to point out one irony regarding the term "McLame" (I think you took me to task for that).  When I was typing that post, I MEANT to type "McSame", but made a typo.  When I read it, it made sense, so I left it in - I knew nothing of the early use/invention of the term.

I threw out the "Does McCain have PTSD?" as an extreme example of an extreme attack - its no more absurd than implying that Obama is "un American" because he isn't wearing a flag pin.  Sure, it pisses off a different sub-set of citizens, but that was kinda the point. But, in the end, such an ad would be most insensitive to those that actually suffer from PTSD because it would imply that they are, somehow, unfit for employment.  You were right to question that proposed advert - it would be offensive.  That offense would raise an issue that is otherwise being underappreciated - the plight of vets returning from this war, and passed wars.  Just like the "Betray Us" ad raised the issue of whether Gen. Petraeus was really so covered in Teflon that he was beyond reproach.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 19:07:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]