The way McCain has handled this fake stage show clearly shows he is unfit to serve as President. When somebody calls you and asks you to work together on an issue of mutual importance, and you agree, and then, while you are in the middle of negotiations, you turn around and stab that person in the back by going public with a proposal clearly designed to put yourself in a better political light and make your opponent look worse - that's not statesmanship. It's demagoguery.
A true statesman would never scuttle negotiations merely for their own political advantage. This back-stab approach is indicative of how McCain would negotiate sensitive treaties with foreign leaders. This is precisely what he should be judged on, the way he puts personal political gain above the common good. Pretend to negotiate, then secretly bail out and go public in an attempt to bolster your political stock and embarrass the person with whom you're negotiating.
Put that together with Sarah 'I Want to be the Female Huey Long' Palin's long, sordid history of using people then destroying them when they are no longer convenient for her - we have quite a pair here, don't we?
No reasonable person seriously believes that at 9pm on Friday night there will be anybody in DC working on the bailout bill. Sure, McCain will hide the whiskey and stage a photo-op for the media so he can pretend he was too busy doing the country's work to go to Mississippi to debate. But it will be just one more falsehood in a campaign that is beginning to look even more deceitful than the last two Bush campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Here's the other part of the endgame. McCain now wants to cancel the VP debates.
At least she was blessed, 3 years ago, to be free from withcraft
http://community.adn.com/adn/blog/24417
You only have to watch Letterman's show from last night to know that Johnny Mc is dead meat. When the commedians cross the line from poking fun at you but leaving you standing to humiliating and heaping scorn on you, that's it. Think Dan Quayle and George Bush. (though they both won, didn't they? Hmm)
Loved Letterman's saying: He doesn't need to suspend his campaign. If he needs to go back to Washington to save the economy, he goes and does what he has to do and leaves his VP in charge to continue the campaign. That's what you do if you're president. (and then he gave a look that said it all).
Shumer and Dodd: "We've heard nothing from McCain on these problems. Now is not the time to inject politicization into the process."
Barney Frank: "We're going to have to interrupt our negotiations and troop down to the White House for a photo op and then come back here and resume the work."
"It's the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of football or of Marys."
There's a "true statesman" left in politics, where?
First off, you accusation of backstabbing and demagoguery is way too premature. Right now you have two individuals both saying they had the idea first. I don't know who did, you don't know who did, but you call one guy a backstabber, etc. This is one of those things that you have to let play out before you know who was truthful and who benefited from this situation. And neither side is free from grandstanding on this crisis or anything else that comes up during the coarse of the race.
And let's talk about the Friday night at 9 PM debate. It seems a little suspicious to me that the debate on foreign policy was scheduled for a time when next to no one would watch it and the following day is the least read news day of the week. Very convenient for the guy that is predicted to do poorly in that debate.
One last thing, this knock on Palin for being "blessed to be free from witchcraft". It seems a little intellectually dishonest for someone who reports to be open to other cultures and customs to poke fun at someone for attending a prayer service by a Kenyan preacher. I suppose you would have preferred that she had refused to be blessed by the Kenyan preacher, then you could have called her a racist.
Ralph,
Which way to the Dems want it?
First they rip McCain for not being there working on the problem, then they complain that he is coming back to work on the problem?
Come on and make up your mind.
Jesse,
You're a really a really intelligent person, but some of these comments are silly.
Yes, I'm concerned with Sarah being freed of 'witchcraft', or going to a service where the Pastor talks about we're in the last days and that their church is one of the 'sanctuary places', or her stating that everything from the oil pipeline to the Iraq war is a mission from God. You'd have to be extremely naive not to believe that sort of rigid fundamentalism is problematic in a politician. Didn't Bush say the he believes he's doing God's work? Look where that has gotten us.
Perhaps you missed the part where Palin won her Mayoral race, against the guy, a close family friend, who mentored her into politics, by spreading a smear campaign that he wasn't a Christian - when she knew he was, since the two families hung otu together. Read the Anchorage Daily News.
The timeline is clear as to who contacted who when - Obama was first. They were negotiating. When you're negotiating, you don't pretned to be negotiating, then circumvent that process to help your own political stock. It is simply not done. My point stands.
This is not how a statesman acts. And if you for a second don't see this for what it really is - Well, you want to buy some swamp land in Florida? It's not under water; that's only dew.
Even the conservatives, George Will et al, have turned against McCain for his dishonest and sleazy campaign. But if you want to stay in the lifeboat with Limbaugh and Hannity, be my guest.
Jesse -- as to which topic is debated which night: the debate arrangers had originally set domestic policy first and foreign policy last. McCain asked for them to be switched because he wanted to do well in the first debate; Obama said fine because he wanted his strength to come last.
They both agreed to the swap. But it was primarily McCain's request to change it.
As to the comment about blaming him for not working on the problem: they didn't blame him; Dodd just said that he had been contacted by Obama but not by McCain. Then when it looked politically expedient, he wants to fly in and "help" fix something that he has not been involved with and would only slow them up.
They've made it clear. They don't need any help from the candidates; it would only inject politics into something that shouldn't be partisan at this point.
As I have said, your "clear time line" is anything but clear. Both sides say they had the idea first. Who knows who really did at this point. Give me one link that shows a clear time line from an independent source. Your "point" is simply taking one parties word over the other. All I said is that it is too soon to know who is lying. Someone is lying, but I don't know who it is.
On the Kenyan preacher, 1) I was at a wedding earlier this year, were everyone in attendance was "blessed free of witchcraft", it is a common practice in Christians from Kenya. Did you even look at the link you posted or just the funny video? She does not regularly attend the church, hasn't since 2002. The pastor came to the church in 2005. It appears it was a political thing when she was going to run for Gov. Did you have equal criticism of Obama for wearing "funny clothes" when he dressed up like a native when he was in Kenya? As I said before, would you prefer she had ignored this minority preacher?
2) you have concerns over "service where the Pastor talks about we're in the last days..." REALLY? but the "AmeriKKKa" or "God dam America" is not a problem for you???? Hmmm, a head of a church talking about the end of days or condemning the country that allows him the religious freedom to have his soap box? Tough choice there. The whole thing seems silly to me; I believe in a supreme being but find organized religion distasteful.
3) What's more ridiculous, being "blessed free of witchcraft" or eating a cracker that is transformed into the body of God's son and drinking wine that is transformed into be his blood by some Gregorian chant as we were raised?
Also, I never said any of this was statesman like, I questioned that there are any statesmen in politics any more.
I have said from the beginning that I am not a supporter of McCain/Palin. I will either vote for Ron Paul, Ralph Nadar or submit a blank ballet. However some here have gone out of their way to trash McCain and Palin, even on nonsensical things, and prop up Obama and Biden. That seems like the same kind of "rigid fundamentalism" that is problematic in politics.
Ralph, I was not referring to Dobb specifically. Various Dems have been criticizing McCain for both not being involved and trying to get involved. My point is, which one is it? Do they want him involved or not? McCain isn't the only one playing politics with this crisis.
Oh Ralph, the Memorandum of Understanding for the debates have not been made public yet. All we know is that the first and the last debate were switched. We don't know what other deals were struck to get to that point or who proposed it and why.
Jesse, I did not keep the source, so I can't quote it. But I did read what I quoted above and saw no reason not to believe it.
And I'd just like to remind you that this is a blog of opinion -- aptly named Two Guys Spouting Off.
Of course we're going to take shots at McCain and Palin, of course we going to sound opinionated, of course we're going to not worry too much about exact quotes from impeccable sources.
If you want both sides of an issue presented in a blanced way, you're probably not going to find it here.
I don't want both sides in a balanced way, but I would like backed up opinions.
If your opinion on an issue is based solely on how you feel about an issue or that you just don't like the other party, then there is really no reason to continue discussing/debating the issue. If however, your opinion on say the economy, can be backed up by quotes, stats or other info then let's have at it.
I visit many blogs on both sides. Some like daily Kos and Red State are simply eco chambers for people who all feel the same way on the issues. I don't spend much time on those sites. Others, like bluemassgroup.com, have people that actually engage in debate on the subjects, which is what I am interested in.
That is why I ask for sources and links, you can't debate someone's feels very effectively. However, if you supply links and I can see how you got to your opinion then I can say weather I agree or disagree and give you reason's why.
For instance when Dick through out that list of things about Palin that he felt made her disqualified to be the VP. I looked at the first one, found it was extremely misleading and gave a counter point. Also, with this "clear time line" issue, my only point on that issue is that it is premature to say who is telling the truth.
Please know, I am not a repub either. I am a registered independent. I am very conservative on the economy, defending the borders and other issues but I am generally more liberal on social and domestic issues. So there are many times when I debate/discuss subjects on blogs that my opinion will change.
If that is not the type of discourse you are looking for with this blog, just let me know.
All references I make are readily available on the net or in magazines or newspapers. I don't have the time to cite all of them. People can do their own research. Here's the reality about the timeline. There is no room for interpretation.
When McCain suspended his campaign around 3 yesterday, the timeline Obama put forth was the one I first listed in this post.
In the hours immediately after that, on at least half a dozen shows on CNN and MSNBC - which I saw - every single McCain surrogate accepted the timeline, and Obama's statements about the nature of their conversations. No McCain surrogate questioned it. The McCain mantra at that time was to avoid discussion of the timeline and say, "leadership leadership leadership."
It wasn't until around 8 or 9 where they started to say yes Obama called at 8:30 but didn't leave a message - he didn't have a clue what it was about? Come on.
McCain's surrogates also accepted the 2:30 phone call where they agreed to make a joint statement. McCain held his press conference at 2:45.
The McCain people didn't question that last night, or on any of the shows I watched this morning. They only question whether or nto Obama left a message.
McCainstated 2 days ago he hadn't even read the preliminary bill.
McCain 'suspended his campaign but spokespeople have been on 5 major talk shows today. And there's the Palin interview.
And just 20 minutes ago, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee says he has never received a phone call from McCain.
How can McCain claim he was 'focused' on this issue(with time in to putz around with Katie Couric - which his surrogates don't mention) when he has never even spoken with the ranking Rep on the banking committee?
Let me requote George Will - the last question, is rhetorical, by the way. The clear answer for Will is No.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
Jesse, I want to respond to your question of the type of discourse we want on here.
I speak only for myself, but I view this as fun, spouting off, mostly as a way to express to like-minded people what I'm thinking about what I'm seeing and reading as this operatic political process unfurls.
I don't see it as a way to convince anyone that I'm right or to convert anyone to my way of thinking. So I don't feel the need to prove what I'm saying.
I am and always have been in the liberal progressive camp; I hold the basic principles so dear that I feel no need to re-examine them.
I can respect your earnest quest to get at the truth as you see it, and I understand why you want and obviously spend a lot of time researching the answers.
One could say that I don't have an open mind. On some things, it's true, my mind is already made up and I don't need further proof.
So to me the blog is more of a place I can "spout off" without having to defend every thing I say. That doesn't make it better or righter -- it just is what it is.
Ralph,
Thank you for the answer on the type of dialog. I shall temper my responses accordingly.
Jesse -- you might be interested in the blog of my friend and colleague Mickie Nardo at 1boringoldman (link is on our list).
He and I share most views and opinions, but he's much more research oriented than I am and backs it up with sources and thoughtful discoursive pieces.
Post a Comment