… especially considering that you made up all of his backwards economics plans. Phil Gramm: “It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country.”
Posts Tagged ‘john mccain’
Reading this sort of thing drives me up the wall: “When asked who “would best protect the U.S. against terrorism,” 53% of respondents chose McCain to just 33% for Obama. And nearly half, 48% to Obama’s 38%, trusted McCain to handle the war in Iraq, though 57% said they believed the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq and 56% said they would like to see the troops brought home within the next two years.”
Why isn’t the DNC running ads, right now, that show all of McCain’s errant predictions about Iraq, along with his false claims now about how he was the Bush administration’s biggest critic, with the buzzer noise from Family Feud across all of them?
“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There’s no doubt in my mind that… we will be welcomed as liberators.” [CNN, Larry King Live, 9/24/02. MSNBC, Hardball, 3/24/03]
“I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past… I don’t believe it’s going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [Face the Nation, 9/15/02]
“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]
McCain was asked, “at what point will America be able to say the war was won?” He responded, “…it’s clear that the end is, is, is very much in sight.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 4/9/03]
Exactly one year before violence in Iraq peaked: “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
He can get the *ding* noise and applause for this one: “no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.”
Atrios isn’t really very impressed with this NYT blog post urging a Sister Souljah moment for John McCain. I suppose he’d argue that McCain, as the candidate of the Republican Party, shouldn’t be saying bad things about Republican constituencies in an effort to curry favor with reflexively centrist, policy-averse media commentators.
That’s fair enough, but the GOP is extraordinarily unpopular and wrong about everything.
So it might genuinely be good politics and good policy to, say, give James Inhofe a public lecture about global warming.
It probably won’t happen because McCain is already having trouble with ginning up enthusiasm among the GOP base, in large part because his 2000 campaign was the Sister Souljah Express.
Carpetbagger notes the McCain camp’s proposal of a series of debates.
I hope it happens. Anything that forces discussion of issues, and backs us away from the brain-off, balls-out style of political discourse that the Lee Atwater/Newt Gingrich/Karl Rove GOP has favored is good for America.
I’d love to see a variety of formats— town hall with audience, no audience, no moderators, etc. It will be harder for McCain to say silly things like that Gen. William Odom wanted to “surrender” in Iraq, and that our problem with health care is that there isn’t enough “choice.” Obama doesn’t tolerate that sort of nonsense.
Obama knows more, speaks better, and has more popular positions than McCain. I think it would go well. And it would be great to think that people cast their votes because they prefer one candidate over the other for substantive reasons, rather than because Obama is too Muslimy.
Benen writes that “There’s a reason the McCain campaign is pushing the idea, and it’s not their love of spirited discourse.” But I think that McCain actually might just like spirited discourse. Back in 2000, he proposed doing a US version of questions for the Prime Minister. He thinks of himself as a modern day Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe he’s sincere in proposing this. Regardless, I think it would work to Obama’s benefit.