A viewer's answer to Colbert's challenge to make McCain's infamous green-screen speech interesting:
Monday, June 30, 2008
Will Romney be the VP Pick?
Oh, please, please, please. This campaign is in desperate need of a fresh dose of comedy, and who better to serve it up than a man whose opinions can be predicted by a simple two-step process:
1. Identify the mainstream Republican viewpoint on a given issue.
2. Say it with near-comic intensity.
Example: Guantanamo Bay.
"Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo." - Mitt Romney.
Why should we "double" Guantanamo? Should we just start rounding up twice as many people to imprison there? Is there any strategic benefit to doing such a thing?
Well, probably not, but it sure sounds tough! And that's what we need more of right now, right?
Right?
1. Identify the mainstream Republican viewpoint on a given issue.
2. Say it with near-comic intensity.
Example: Guantanamo Bay.
"Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo." - Mitt Romney.
Why should we "double" Guantanamo? Should we just start rounding up twice as many people to imprison there? Is there any strategic benefit to doing such a thing?
Well, probably not, but it sure sounds tough! And that's what we need more of right now, right?
Right?
McCain's War Record
Politico is reporting that attacks on Sen. McCain's war record are beginning to heat up. Last weekend, retired Gen. Wesley Clark said that he didn't think that McCain's military service was relevant to running the country, and yesterday, AMERICAblog posed the question, "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"
It's important to sort out a few things before we get to the meat of these statements. First of all, it would be a mistake to confuse the two comments. I think that Wesley Clark is right - John McCain's experience in Vietnam, by itself, does not guarantee that he'll be a competent commander-in-chief. The money quote from Clark was:
Now to the second comment, a post that appeared on Sunday on AMERICAblog. This seems much slimier to me. Here's the post in its entirety:
But all of this ignores the biggest problem with that post. The New York Times ran a piece today about the attempt to reclaim the term "swift boat" by veterans, and it's got me thinking about the tactics deployed in AMERICAblog. There's no reason to think that military service alone qualifies McCain for the presidency - and good people can disagree about the relevance of military experience to the position of a civilian commander-in-chief. But accusing McCain of "disloyalty" by appearing half-dead in a video produced by the enemy is a particularly low blow. Democrats still cringe when they hear the words "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," remembering how slimy political operatives turned a Vietnam war hero into a dishonest and weak punching bag for the right. What was it that we hated about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Was it that they were mendacious thugs who cared more about winning than about the truth - or was it that they were attacking a Democrat? Are we going to adopt the tactics of our enemies? In a message to Politico, Jon Aravosis, who wrote the post about McCain on AMERICAblog, said, "Well, the Republicans sported Band-Aids to mock John Kerry's medals from Vietnam. They mocked his injuries in war." Good to know that his idea of political debate boils down to "He started it!"
I have no interest in attacking John McCain as disloyal for having been in a propaganda video produced by the enemy. I can't imagine how much pain he was in, and I believe him when he says he was at his breaking point. I think that his Vietnam service, though admirable, does not mean he'll be a better commander-in-chief than Barack Obama would. Those two stands are not mutually exclusive, and if the left has any interest in winning (or in being responsible), they'll realize that.
It's important to sort out a few things before we get to the meat of these statements. First of all, it would be a mistake to confuse the two comments. I think that Wesley Clark is right - John McCain's experience in Vietnam, by itself, does not guarantee that he'll be a competent commander-in-chief. The money quote from Clark was:
"I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."Ok - so we're playing hardball now, but he's right, isn't he? Clark was careful to add that he had worlds of respect for McCain's service, but he didn't consider McCain to have the executive experience necessary to be President. I agree. McCain has never been a governor, a CEO, a general, or the leader of any large organization whose job it is to make the tough calls and take ultimate responsibility. As Clark pointed out, McCain commanded a squadron in the Navy - but it wasn't a wartime squadron, and anyway, that's not the same thing. It should be noted here that Obama is also green in terms of executive experience. Not that such experience would guarantee success - after all, we're about to be done with 8 years of a president who was governor of a major state. But does the lack of that experience guarantee failure? (I would say no, but I want to hear what you think.)
Now to the second comment, a post that appeared on Sunday on AMERICAblog. This seems much slimier to me. Here's the post in its entirety:
It's not "nice" to ask the question, but it's actually a pretty good question. Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the "I was tortured" card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience. Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience. Again, it's not nice to say say, but we're not running for class president here. We deserve real answers, not emotional outbursts designed to quell the questions.No, it's not "nice" to ask the question, but it's also not relevant to ask it (and it's a pretty bad question, actually). Asking what McCain did to "excel" in the military is totally different from asking how his military experience translates into executive readiness - even if that post attempts rather lamely to conflate the two questions. It's not necessary to "excel" in the military to prove your qualifications for president, though perhaps McCain's seventeen awards and decorations from the military will suggest that maybe he wasn't a total waste of space as a soldier (or that he wasn't a traitor, which I'll get to in a minute). I'll agree that being a veteran, by itself, is not qualification for the presidency, but he's served in the U.S. Congress for a quarter century. That has to count for something, doesn't it?
But all of this ignores the biggest problem with that post. The New York Times ran a piece today about the attempt to reclaim the term "swift boat" by veterans, and it's got me thinking about the tactics deployed in AMERICAblog. There's no reason to think that military service alone qualifies McCain for the presidency - and good people can disagree about the relevance of military experience to the position of a civilian commander-in-chief. But accusing McCain of "disloyalty" by appearing half-dead in a video produced by the enemy is a particularly low blow. Democrats still cringe when they hear the words "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," remembering how slimy political operatives turned a Vietnam war hero into a dishonest and weak punching bag for the right. What was it that we hated about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Was it that they were mendacious thugs who cared more about winning than about the truth - or was it that they were attacking a Democrat? Are we going to adopt the tactics of our enemies? In a message to Politico, Jon Aravosis, who wrote the post about McCain on AMERICAblog, said, "Well, the Republicans sported Band-Aids to mock John Kerry's medals from Vietnam. They mocked his injuries in war." Good to know that his idea of political debate boils down to "He started it!"
I have no interest in attacking John McCain as disloyal for having been in a propaganda video produced by the enemy. I can't imagine how much pain he was in, and I believe him when he says he was at his breaking point. I think that his Vietnam service, though admirable, does not mean he'll be a better commander-in-chief than Barack Obama would. Those two stands are not mutually exclusive, and if the left has any interest in winning (or in being responsible), they'll realize that.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Worth Watching
The universality of dancing. (Make sure your sound is on.)
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
The Islamophobic Vote
Eboo Patel has an interesting piece in today's Georgetown/On Faith blog about repudiating the anti-Muslim vote.
Incidentally, the rumors about Obama being Muslim strike me as a racial attack rather than a religious attack. Poorly-researched and widely-rebutted NYT op-eds aside, I think most anti-Obama bigots aren't convinced he's a Muslim. There's way too much evidence to the contrary, and every story claiming Obama's Muslim heritage has been debunked. Even if Obama were a Muslim apostate, as Luttwak claimed in that NYT piece, the "Obama = secret Muslim" fears of the bigots would still be unfounded. Their concern, widely, is not that Obama's heritage will anger Muslim countries; it's that he's a Manchurian candidate (or perhaps a Trojan horse) whose Christianity is merely a disguise for a more nefarious agenda.
So given that it's obvious Obama is a practicing Christian, it's hard to believe that his name has caused so much confusion. I think it's more likely that Islamophobia is (sadly) more socially acceptable than racism, and the obfuscation of Obama's religious views and background is an effort to provide cover for a different bigotry (one that is equally offensive, but at least rooted in reality - almost no one has argued that Senator Obama isn't black). Few people are still willing to publicly declare that they "just won't vote for that n******," but saying "I don't know about voting for a Muslim" is still fair game. Hopefully I'll see the abandonment of that bigotry as well in my lifetime.
"Every Presidential campaign is an opportunity to affirm America's core values – to ourselves and the world. I hope this campaign starts living up to one of those values, best articulated by Senator Clinton… 'there are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century in our country.'I don't know what would happen, but I won't spend much time wondering - because it never will. Republican strategists know that they need the racist vote, and so far neither candidate has displayed the backbone necessary for this kind of politically-costly slap in the face to their own base. Obama may have angered the left with his compromise on FISA or his change of heart on NAFTA (the latter of which I'm happy to see), but those moves were part of a general election strategy, and they'll help more than they hurt. If Senator McCain's image isn't suffering because of the racists whose votes he will surely win, he's not going to publicly repudiate them.Not against somebody's gender. Not against somebody's race. Not against somebody's religion.
Which makes me think about the time John Edwards said, back when he was in the running, that he didn’t want the votes of people who refused to vote for Senator Clinton because of her gender and Senator Obama because of his race.
What if Mr. McCain put on his homepage tomorrow that he doesn't want the votes of people like Mr. Fasano who proudly proclaim that they are not voting for Mr. Obama because they don't like his name or the religion of his grandfather?"
Incidentally, the rumors about Obama being Muslim strike me as a racial attack rather than a religious attack. Poorly-researched and widely-rebutted NYT op-eds aside, I think most anti-Obama bigots aren't convinced he's a Muslim. There's way too much evidence to the contrary, and every story claiming Obama's Muslim heritage has been debunked. Even if Obama were a Muslim apostate, as Luttwak claimed in that NYT piece, the "Obama = secret Muslim" fears of the bigots would still be unfounded. Their concern, widely, is not that Obama's heritage will anger Muslim countries; it's that he's a Manchurian candidate (or perhaps a Trojan horse) whose Christianity is merely a disguise for a more nefarious agenda.
So given that it's obvious Obama is a practicing Christian, it's hard to believe that his name has caused so much confusion. I think it's more likely that Islamophobia is (sadly) more socially acceptable than racism, and the obfuscation of Obama's religious views and background is an effort to provide cover for a different bigotry (one that is equally offensive, but at least rooted in reality - almost no one has argued that Senator Obama isn't black). Few people are still willing to publicly declare that they "just won't vote for that n******," but saying "I don't know about voting for a Muslim" is still fair game. Hopefully I'll see the abandonment of that bigotry as well in my lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
