Arizona Senator John McCain (official)

[CookyPuss]

Multilateral Like Bush

Only a press corps so enamored with McCain could imagine that one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq War would be capable of breaking with the current administration's unilateral adventurism. Despite his conciliatory rhetoric, McCain's hawkish views, and his long history of castigating allies who do not agree with him, leave little reason to believe that when it comes to restoring America's image, credibility, and alliances, he would be much different than George W. Bush. A brief look at these four crucial policy areas explains why.

Interesting article. The New Republic is not exactly a liberal think tank. McCain's "insult your allies" approach is a strong contrast with Obama's "talk to your enemies" approach to foreign policy.

Personally, I'm not as concerned about a President McCain with an "itchy" trigger finger on the button as I am with a quick-tempered McCain going off half-cocked on the wrong foreign leader.

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

Multilateral Like Bush


Interesting article. The New Republic is not exactly a liberal think tank. McCain's "insult your allies" approach is a strong contrast with Obama's "talk to your enemies" approach to foreign policy.

Personally, I'm not as concerned about a President McCain with an "itchy" trigger finger on the button as I am with a quick-tempered McCain going off half-cocked on the wrong foreign leader.

First, the New Republic is indeed a left leaning publication, especially on social issues.

Second, if the New Rebublic isn't the "National Security Network" that the authors direct, is.

[sandgk]

A looming issue for McCain's wife?

Releasing her financial records not an option apparently, even if she became First Lady.

Biz Journals - brief report

Cindy McCain -- chairwoman of Hensley & Co. and wife of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain -- defended her decision Thursday not to disclose her tax returns.
She and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., file separate returns. The senator's presidential campaign released his tax records last month, but not hers.
She defended that move Thursday on NBC's "The Today Show."

This followed the Sunday editorial in the NY Times asking that Cindy McCain release her records - a step which John Kerry's wife had taken during his campaign.

[sandgk]

Another pesky issue for McCain that won't go away - did he or did he not vote for Bush in 2000?
Full disclosure - if he wasn't running for POTUS, and if he had not built so much of his reputation on being a Straight Talker (Expressly) this wouldn't amount to more than a mole-hill of beans. But he is and he has so that mole-hill becomes larger and perhaps, for McCain, an obstacle over which he can trip.

This was raised by Huffington on her eponymous HuffingtonPost web-site earliier this month.
Basically, the assertion is that in 2001 McCain allowed, at a dinner party attended by Huffington and others, that he did not vote for Bush in the Presidential Election (moreoever it was reported that his wife Cindy was not on board with Bush in the voting booth).

McCain had a different version of the events, Huffington's claims were first disputed through a campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds and published on the Washington Post's blog.

Today contrary reports, supportive of Huffington's account, appeared in the NY Times:

"Someone asked, ‘What do you think of Bush?’ ” Mr. Schiff recalled. “My recollection, and I have to qualify this, because I’m not 100 percent sure he used this word, but my recollection is that McCain said that Bush was dangerous and he didn’t trust him. Then this person said, ‘Why did you support him?’ And McCain said, ‘It was my obligation as a Republican to support the Republican candidate.’ And the person said, ‘Did you vote for him?’ And McCain said, ‘No.’ ”

similar reports from others attending the Candice Bergen dinner party, also appeared in the Washington Post.

Two Hollywood actors who dined with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in early 2001 at actress Candice Bergen's home confirmed Thursday that he told the assembled group he did not vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 election.
In separate phone interviews, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff -- both of whom starred in the television political drama "The West Wing" -- said the senator made the remarks after he spoke at length about his reservations about Bush becoming president. Liberal blogger Arianna Huffington first wrote about the incident Monday, asserting neither McCain nor his wife Cindy backed Bush in his first presidential bid, and the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that a woman who was also at the dinner confirmed Huffington's account, though she declined to give her name.

Thursday, McCain appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show and personally denied the core of Huffington's claim.

His claim goes beyond merely casting a vote for the current President. But, first a moment of unintended hilarity.

O'REILLY: Did you vote for President bush?

MCCAIN: Of course not. I campaigned all over this country for him.

Huh??
Good job for McCain, Bill re-asks the question ...

O'REILLY: So you voted for President Bush.

MCCAIN: Of course. I mean, that's a ridiculous question.

O'REILLY: So she lied?

MCCAIN: Well, I don't -- frankly, I do not read Huffington Post. I spare myself from having that experience.

O'REILLY: You voted for Bush in 2000?

MCCAIN: I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

O'REILLY: OK.

MCCAIN: And not only that, far more important than a vote, I campaigned everywhere in America for him.

O'REILLY: (INAUDIBLE).

MCCAIN: I enjoyed it. I campaigned with him. I did everything I could to get him elected and reelected president.

Now, let us set aside the "reelected" part of McCain's answer, as that was never the question being posed.

We now have four individual accounts of that evening, three named, one anonymous, all basically congruent. Only McCain's account is dissonant.

So either McCain misled (lied about) his vote / non-vote in 2000 for Bush when asked in 2001, or he is lying now.

It is thus worth examining the degree to which he glosses and shines his supporting testimony on the O'Reilly show. The pieces I think most important being highlighted.

I campaigned everywhere in America for him.

Everywhere for Bush, in 2000? Not according to a nicely written biography in 12 parts on the Arizona Republic web-site.

Now, there is absolutely no doubt that, despite South Carolina, McCain eventually came out and endorsed Bush for President in 2000. None, zero, zilch. Likewise, it is a fact that McCain delivered a well remembered speech, supporting Bush, at the Republican National Convention full of phrases evoking the passing of the torch to this generation of Republicans and their new candidate. But, the number of times he made appearances around the country in Bush's company, or to independently espouse the candidacy of his erstwhile opponent beyond Arizona were relatively few.

Sufficiently recovered, McCain made campaign stops for Republican candidates and, eventually, stumped with Bush, too, although McCain's enthusiasm also was subjected to scrutiny.

McCain made a couple of appearances with Bush around the time of the Republican convention and caught up with him in New England in late October.

At an Oct. 20 appearance in Bangor, Maine, McCain cited the Oct. 12, 2000, terrorist plot against the USS Cole, which killed 17, in supporting Bush as the better choice for commander in chief "in a dangerous world."

In Florida, McCain again referred to the Cole explosion as an indictment of the Clinton administration's "photo-op foreign policy for which we may pay a very heavy price in American blood.

"We need a commander-in-chief that men and women in the military will look up to and respect and will restore their readiness and their prestige, and that my friends is Gov. George W. Bush, I promise you," McCain was quoted as saying by the Chicago Tribune in an Oct. 26 piece.

Sum and substance, McCain exaggerates somewhat the role he played in boosting Bush's candidacy - but there is no doubt that he did hit the trail on Bush's behalf. That said, why indulge in any exaggeration at all?

Further, does his record of playing the dutiful party member in 2000 actually undercut the assertion of his non-Vote for Bush in the election? He could have been for boosting the candidacy, like a good party soldier, before he was against casting a vote for Bush in 2000, based on his own conscience.

Last, if he did vote for Bush, why indicate otherwise to the Bergen party guests, unless that is McCain tailored his response to mirror the disposition of his audience on that night?

[methomps]

"John McCain is going to be doing more of these themed tours of America, and one of them is going to be on energy and global climate change. It could get him into trouble with Republicans, of course, and with the base, who don't think there is much climate change going on, but it is something that he's very passionate about and he's going to be talking about it."

Yeas & Nays - McCain planning climate change tour - Examiner.com

[CookyPuss]

FactCheck.org: The Budget According to McCain: Part I

McCain's attempt to conflate earmark reform with budget cuts is a bit of logical sleight-of-hand (a formal logical fallacy that philosophers call an undistributed middle). McCain's argument is that:

1. The McCain economic plan will cut $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
2. Past and present earmarks account for $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
3. Therefore, the McCain economic plan will cut past and present earmarks.

The argument is seductive. But consider another argument that has exactly the same logical structure:

1. Clouds are white and fluffy.
2. Sheep are white and fluffy.
3. Therefore, clouds are sheep.

Sheep and clouds have some properties in common, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Similarly, earmark cuts and budget cuts may add up to the same totals, but that doesn't mean that the budget cuts will be the result of earmark cuts.

Now, there is some fine analysis.

FactCheck.org: The Budget According to McCain: Part II

In McCain's world, everyone gets a pony: tax cuts for the middle class, higher revenue to continue all the popular government programs and the elimination of all those earmarks that no one (except their very specific beneficiaries) really likes anyway. Unfortunately, in the world of fiscal reality, it's not so easy to dole out such generous gifts.

I guess McCain really wasn't kidding when he said he didn't understand economics.

(I'm sure factcheck.org will nail some of Obama's claims later)

[sandgk]

Wonder if this will get characterized as:
"I was against a timetable for withdrawal before I was for a timetable for withdrawal"
Today - Columbus, OH

Sen. John McCain predicted today that the Iraq war would be won and most American troops would come home by 2013 if he is elected president, joining his Democratic rivals for the first time in offering a timeline for a large-scale military withdrawal.
McCain said only a small contingent of troops, in non-combat roles, would remain in Iraq five years from now. He said the drawdown would be possible because al-Qaeda in Iraq would be defeated and a democratic government would be operating in the war-torn country.

Previously during Bush Preisdency - and all the way through the primaries:

McCain previously had resisted offering target dates for troop withdrawals, saying that to do so would be tantamount to giving terrorists a timeline for defeat. During the Florida primary, he blasted former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for what he said was support of a withdrawal timeline. Democrats, meanwhile, pilloried McCain for saying American troops could remain in Iraq for up to 100 years -- a reference McCain later likened to the presence of U.S. bases in Germany or South Korea.

A more brusque appraisal of McCain's vision of the end of the Iraq War here: (HP)

After yet another crushing special election loss for the GOP, and with Obama's national numbers building strength against his rival, John McCain has realized the need to take a new direction, beginning today with a horrifyingly disingenuous speech.
....
As a result, McCain has decided to break with his own precedent, and to claim that, unlike all of his previous statements, he expects an end to the Iraq war by the end of his first term. In a major address today, McCain envisions that, by January 2013, we will be welcoming most of our troops home. He sees that future as one in which "the Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced." This latest suggestion is, in its most positive light, a political ploy. And it is preconditioned on the impossible.
If he believes what he is saying, then McCain is yet again showing a passing understanding of the conflict in the Middle East. Even by the most generous assessments, it would take at least sixteen months to withdraw our troops from Iraq. To have the bulk of our troops home by January of 2013, with his preconditions having been met, would require that McCain somehow achieve this functioning democracy and dramatic decrease in violence within two years of taking office. From where does he imagine he will find political reconciliation? In what sense can he expect a reduction in violence, given no evidence that a long-term reduction is sustainable? It is simply not feasible to assume that our exit from Iraq, if it were to coincide with the happy ending McCain portends, could possibly happen in either 100 years or on his new shortened timeline.
It is far more likely, however, that McCain does not believe what he is saying, that he has not in fact, had a genuine change of heart. The conditions on the ground in Iraq have not changed. But the political conditions for this election have. This is not an honest assessment from the self-appointed king of straight talk. It is rather yet another false promise, uttered with a straight face, as an attempt to survive an election, and with no intent to follow through.

[BayBuck]

I'm pretty sure that McCain predicting we will beat down al-Qaeda in Iraq and be able to bring back all combat troops is not the same as the bring-em-home win-or-lose timetable that the MoveOn crowd wants and that he has previously refused to set. A goal is not a promise.

[sandgk]

His speech is a huge walk back from his earlier statements to attract the Republican base during the primaries - most notably in his tiff with Romney.

When asked about McCain's claim while speaking with reporters in Lutz, a clearly irked Romney said McCain was being "dishonest."
"To say that I have a specific date is simply wrong and is dishonest, and he should apologize," Romney argued.
"That is not the case. I've never said that," Romney said emphatically, arguing McCain was "trying desperately to change the topic from the economy and trying to get back to Iraq. But to say something that's not accurate is simply wrong and he knows better." McCain was in no mood to apologize. At a Sun City, campaigning stop later in the day, he said Romney is the one who should apologize.
"Gov. Romney last April said he believed we should set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. My friend, when he suggested that, Gen. [David] Petraeus's new [surge] strategy in Iraq was just beginning," McCain said.
"Now I understand that Gov. Romney has changed his position again as he has on several other issues. But my friends, I was there. He said that he wanted a timetable for withdrawal. That would have meant disaster. That would have meant that al Qaeda would not be telling the world that they defeated the United States of America," he said.

Ironically, given MCCain's 2013 specific prediction, Romney's error in McCain's view was that Mitt had actually hinted at withdrawal by a date that would not even be disclosed.

[BayBuck]

Originally Posted by sandgk

His speech is a huge walk back from his earlier statements to attract the Republican base during the primaries.

The "timetables" that the liberal base loves so much are not predictions of on-the-ground success, they are promises to the American people that our troops will be out of Iraq by a specific date regardless of the situation in Iraq. What McCain is doing here is stating his campaign goal that al-Qaeda in Iraq will be defeated and the original mission completed (insert Tibor Bush-in-flightsuit zinger here), thereby allowing the troops to return--not because a particular deadline has passed but because there is no longer the need to maintain our current troop levels. Is that a bold and even outlandish prediction? Perhaps. But it is not the "timetable" that the Huffington Post and its comrades are trying to label it.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, I am to understand, then, that we can anticipate success in ousting from Iraq, that which did not exist in Iraq before we got involved in the first place in just 5 more years? Awesome. I sure hope I can pay more for gas too during that time.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by BayBuck

The "timetables" that the liberal base loves so much are not predictions of on-the-ground success, they are promises to the American people that our troops will be out of Iraq by a specific date regardless of the situation in Iraq. What McCain is doing here is stating his campaign goal that al-Qaeda in Iraq will be defeated and the original mission completed (insert Tibor Bush-in-flightsuit zinger here), thereby allowing the troops to return--not because a particular deadline has passed but because there is no longer the need to maintain our current troop levels. Is that a bold and even outlandish prediction? Perhaps. But it is not the "timetable" that the Huffington Post and its comrades are trying to label it.

BayBuck - how the liberals cast their timetable criteria is not relevant to the irony of McCain serving up a classic Kerryesque "I was against them and now I'm for them" declaration about timetables. Based solely on McCain's criteria for dismissing timetables as hinted at by Romney, who certainly had no interest in "losing" in Iraq, this is a significant reversal, and there is no getting around that.

You can also surely see how this diminishes the strength of any declarative position he would have otherwise taken in the future Presidential debates - even if the conversation goes beyond the Kerryesque parallel (and it surely must).

This is so for these reasons, in addition to the "Straight Talk Flip-Flop" quips.

First, because McCain can no longer argue absolute stark contrast, but must instead argue nuance in distinguishing himself from Obama.

Second, McCain's position is predicated on a promise of victory he has no guarantee of keeping. In fact, if the promise of the Iraq Study Group had been fulfilled Obama's own Iraq War De-escalation legislation would have placed him as an Architect of the Peace. (For that group's recommendation were premised on leaving Iraq in local and stable control). Obama can easily argue that he was looking to do this all the while and that McCain is at best a very late convert, and at worst pandering to the public.

Third, predicated on the two going Lincoln and Douglas debate style, I can easily foresee Obama boxing McCain in on what he believes the terms of victory to be. Aside from BKB's pragmatic caveat concerning sectarian violence, what this does is simple, it elicits McCain's terms which you can bet will be little different in substance from those of the Iraq Study Group.

At which point all that needs asked is "why did you not speak for nor support exactly those measures when they were introduced in the US Senate in 2007?"

Finally for this post, aside from those future debates, there is the issue of how this plays with those more hawkish (Bushish?) Republicans who will see this as a break from their beliefs, and of course any past Romney supporters who contrast what is said now in an attempt to reach the center with what he said about Romney's "undisclosed date" plan.

[BayBuck]

Originally Posted by sandgk

BayBuck - how the liberals cast their timetable criteria is not relevant to the irony of McCain serving up a classic Kerryesque "I was against them and now I'm for them" declaration about timetables. Based solely on McCain's criteria for dismissing timetables as hinted at by Romney, who certainly had no interest in "losing" in Iraq, this is a significant reversal, and there is no getting around that...

I guess I'm not as concerned with how this plays as a gotcha for the Dems, and just appreciate the boldness of McCain's currently-stated goal for Iraq, which frankly just sounds more "executive" than much of the legislative boasting coming from the Obama camp. McCain today offered a positive vision of what he hopes to achieve as president, and I imagine he's prepared to defend himself in a discussion of how he got from there to here: not everyone turns into John Kerry when pressed on why today's message sounds different from the one last year.

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by BayBuck

I guess I'm not as concerned with how this plays as a gotcha for the Dems, and just appreciate the boldness of McCain's currently-stated goal for Iraq, which frankly just sounds more "executive" than much of the legislative boasting coming from the Obama camp. McCain today offered a positive vision of what he hopes to achieve as president, and I imagine he's prepared to defend himself in a discussion of how he got from there to here: not everyone turns into John Kerry when pressed on why today's message sounds different from the one last year.

Sadly, I don't think it matters much if American's buy McCain or Obama's vision. The Iraqis have to buy it. If they don't, they can tell us to leave when our current authorization expires on Jan 1.

The War's Expiration Date - washingtonpost.com

A crucial yet overlooked deadline looms over the Iraq debate: Unless further action is taken, the war will become illegal on Jan. 1, 2009.
Despite protestations to the contrary, Congress clearly understood that it was authorizing the president to intervene militarily when it passed its joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in October 2002. But it did not give him a blank check. It allowed for the use of force only under two conditions.

The first has long since lapsed. It permitted the president to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." This threat came to an end with the destruction of Saddam Hussein's government. It makes no sense to say that it continues today, or that our "national security" is "threatened by" the Iraqi government headed by Nouri al-Maliki.

Instead, U.S. military intervention is authorized under the second prong of the 2002 resolution. This authorizes the president to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." This has allowed the Bush administration to satisfy American law by obtaining a series of resolutions authorizing the United States to serve as the head of the multinational force in Iraq.

But here's the rub. The most recent U.N. resolution expires on Dec. 31, and the administration has announced that it will not seek one for 2009. Instead, it is now negotiating a bilateral agreement with the Iraqi government to replace the U.N. mandate.

Whatever this agreement contains, it will not fill the legal vacuum. That's because the administration is not planning to submit this new agreement to Congress for its explicit approval. Since the Constitution gives the power to "declare war" to Congress, the president can't ignore the conditions imposed on him in 2002 without returning for a new grant of authority. He cannot substitute the consent of the Iraqi government for the consent of the U.S. Congress.

Basically, the Iraqis can tell us to get the hell out on Jan 1 and unless Congress or the UN overrides them, the war will be illegal. Furthermore, Congress will have to agree with any agreement with the Iraqis.

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by BayBuck

I guess I'm not as concerned with how this plays as a gotcha for the Dems, and just appreciate the boldness of McCain's currently-stated goal for Iraq, which frankly just sounds more "executive" than much of the legislative boasting coming from the Obama camp. McCain today offered a positive vision of what he hopes to achieve as president, and I imagine he's prepared to defend himself in a discussion of how he got from there to here: not everyone turns into John Kerry when pressed on why today's message sounds different from the one last year.

Here's your commercial version:

YouTube - McCain Ad - 2013

Who is doing McCain's commercials? Whoever it is should be fired. They are dark and frankly.. creepy. Powers Boothe is about the least inspiring narrator they could find. Doesn't he usually play the guy who has to wake the President up at 3AM? I would think they would be draping McCain in the flag and with an upbeat, patriotic feel to his ads. Instead, most of his ads make me think of this guy:

YouTube - A Few Good Men: Nicholson's Final Words

I keep waiting for one where McCain says, "You can't handle the truth. You want me in Iraq, you need me in Iraq."