If the election had gone the other way, Americans would have been spared all this doubt and deliberation about what to do in the Middle East.
Asked today whether adding 10 or 20,000 troops for Afghanistan would suffice, John McCain tells CNN it would be "an error of historic proportions" not to meet Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000 or more.
If Barack Obama were as sure of anything as McCain is of everything, there would be no need for agonizing over what conservative Peggy Noonan calls "a choice between two hells":
"The hell of withdrawal is what kind of drama would fill the vacuum, who would re-emerge, who would be empowered, what Pakistan would look like with a newly redrawn reality in the neighborhood, what tremors would shake the ground there as the U.S. troops march out...a great nation that had made a commitment in retreat...
"The hell of staying is equally clear, and vivid: more loss of American and allied troops, more damage to men and resources, an American national debate that would be a continuing wound and possibly a debilitating one, an overstretched military given no relief and in fact stretched thinner, a huge and continuing financial cost in a time when our economy is low," with no guarantee or even definition of success.
A resolute President McCain would have little patience for this kind of hemming and hawing even though, as Frank Rich points out, "He made every wrong judgment call that could be made after 9/11. It’s not just that he echoed the Bush administration’s constant innuendos that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda’s attack on America. Or that he hyped the faulty W.M.D. evidence to the hysterical extreme of fingering Iraq for the anthrax attacks in Washington. Or that he promised we would win the war 'easily.' Or that he predicted that the Sunnis and the Shiites would 'probably get along' in post-Saddam Iraq because there was 'not a history of clashes' between them.
"What’s more mortifying still is that McCain was just as wrong about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He routinely minimized or dismissed the growing threats in both countries over the past six years, lest they draw American resources away from his pet crusade in Iraq."
But the Might-Have-Been Republican President is content to keep shooting from the hip even as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, another Republican, joins Hillary Clinton in emphasizing a more considered approach:
"(T)he new commander has done an assessment and found a situation in Afghanistan that is more serious than we anticipated when the decisions were made in March. So that's one thing to take into account.
"The other is, clearly, a flawed election in Afghanistan that has complicated the picture for us...
"The president is being asked to make a very significant decision. And the notion of being willing to pause, reassess basic assumptions, reassess the analysis, and then make those decisions seems to me, given the importance of these decisions...among the most important he will make in his entire presidency--seems entirely appropriate."
With McCain in the White House, Gates would be in deep trouble for waffling like that.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Women of the Week, Men of the Past
Sonia Sotomayor is on her way to the Supreme Court as Laura Ling and Euna Lee are reunited with their families after being wrested from the grasp of Kim Jong-il.
Yet the imagery of these triumphant women is blurred by double exposures from the past of men involved in their fates.
Voting against Sotomayor's confirmation today as the third woman and first person of Latino heritage on the Court will be John McCain, who incurred his party's wrath by being soft on immigration and was defeated last year after choosing a female running mate.
Calling Sotomayor's background "inspiring and compelling," McCain insists that "an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it."
McCain, who reveled in Sarah Palin's campaign feistiness last year, now finds Sotomayor not demure enough for his tastes.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, a decade ago was prattling in public about what the meaning of "is" is in his dicey relationships with women. Now here he is standing silently by as a courtly white-haired figure after rescuing "damsels in distress" from a pint-sized North Korean dragon, hugging only Al Gore at the scene of their reunion with loved ones.
In the age of Obama, the former president has shown that we are not quite yet living in no country for old men, but his activities and McCain's this week suggest that we are getting there.
Yet the imagery of these triumphant women is blurred by double exposures from the past of men involved in their fates.
Voting against Sotomayor's confirmation today as the third woman and first person of Latino heritage on the Court will be John McCain, who incurred his party's wrath by being soft on immigration and was defeated last year after choosing a female running mate.
Calling Sotomayor's background "inspiring and compelling," McCain insists that "an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it."
McCain, who reveled in Sarah Palin's campaign feistiness last year, now finds Sotomayor not demure enough for his tastes.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, a decade ago was prattling in public about what the meaning of "is" is in his dicey relationships with women. Now here he is standing silently by as a courtly white-haired figure after rescuing "damsels in distress" from a pint-sized North Korean dragon, hugging only Al Gore at the scene of their reunion with loved ones.
In the age of Obama, the former president has shown that we are not quite yet living in no country for old men, but his activities and McCain's this week suggest that we are getting there.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Carterizing Obama
John McCain, who relaxed during last year's campaign by improvising a "Bomb Iran" ditty, is back to lead a Republican chorus taunting Barack Obama as another Jimmy Carter.
The tune is familiar, but the words are all wrong. Three decades ago, Carter dealt with a vulnerable revolution in Iran by fumbling every move from allowing the deposed Shah into the US to watching American Embassy hostages in Tehran paraded on TV for 444 days with time out for a lethally inept rescue attempt.
Now, as Roger Cohen writes from Tehran, "Iran’s 1979 revolution took a full year to gestate. The uprising of 2009 has now ended its first phase. But the volatility ushered in by the June 12 ballot-box putsch of Iran’s New Right is certain to endure over the coming year. The Islamic Republic has been weakened."
Unlike Carter, who tried to placate and then was overwhelmed by forces he could not control, Obama has been firm and statesmanlike in denouncing tyranny in Iran without be seen as pouring gasoline on the fire in the streets, reiterating that "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs.
"But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."
The images of Neda Agha Soltan, the young woman killed in the street protests, will endure as witness to a brutal regime but by themselves will not bring it down any more than the 1970 Kent State killings of four students unseated Richard Nixon back then. Yet four years later he was gone.
As a student of history, Obama understands the difference between an historical process and red-meat rhetoric, even if McCain and his GOP pygmy imitators don’t. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, those of us who knew Jimmy Carter in his prime can testify that Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter.
Not even close.
The tune is familiar, but the words are all wrong. Three decades ago, Carter dealt with a vulnerable revolution in Iran by fumbling every move from allowing the deposed Shah into the US to watching American Embassy hostages in Tehran paraded on TV for 444 days with time out for a lethally inept rescue attempt.
Now, as Roger Cohen writes from Tehran, "Iran’s 1979 revolution took a full year to gestate. The uprising of 2009 has now ended its first phase. But the volatility ushered in by the June 12 ballot-box putsch of Iran’s New Right is certain to endure over the coming year. The Islamic Republic has been weakened."
Unlike Carter, who tried to placate and then was overwhelmed by forces he could not control, Obama has been firm and statesmanlike in denouncing tyranny in Iran without be seen as pouring gasoline on the fire in the streets, reiterating that "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs.
"But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."
The images of Neda Agha Soltan, the young woman killed in the street protests, will endure as witness to a brutal regime but by themselves will not bring it down any more than the 1970 Kent State killings of four students unseated Richard Nixon back then. Yet four years later he was gone.
As a student of history, Obama understands the difference between an historical process and red-meat rhetoric, even if McCain and his GOP pygmy imitators don’t. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, those of us who knew Jimmy Carter in his prime can testify that Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter.
Not even close.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tougher Than Thou on Iran
To post-election turmoil in Tehran, Washington reaction is shaping up as a classic round of mock macho, ranging from John McCain's twittering down to Eric Cantor's schoolyard taunting of the Obama Administration.
Faced with the unknowable depth, duration and consequences of opposition to Ahmadinejad's "victory," the White House is limiting itself to expressions of concern and disapproval, but carefully avoiding an active role in fomenting discord in Iran.
That's not good enough for today's Republicans in an age where the rule that politics stops at the water's edge is only a memory.
On the Today Show, McCain insists that Iran "should not be subjected to four more years of Ahmadinejad and the radical Muslim clerics,” urging that Obama “should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights.”
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, as befits his 2012 presidential delusions, as substantive as those self-promoted rumors about being considered as McCain's running mate last year, goes even further:
"The Administration’s silence in the face of Iran’s brutal suppression of democratic rights represents a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East. President Obama must take a strong public position in the face of violence and human rights abuses. We have a moral responsibility to lead the world in opposition to Iran’s extreme response to peaceful protests."
The Wall Street Journal is cheer-leading the GOP's macho moves on Obama, declaring three days after the election, "Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his approach to Iran in his first months in office. Even Jimmy Carter drew roughly appropriate conclusions about the Iranian regime after the hostages were taken in 1979."
Such static is no less damaging for being so predictable and feckless. McCain, for one, might want to think back to his own and Al Gore's experiences with a "sham of an election" in 2000 and consider how he would have responded to Iranian bloviating about "people being deprived of their rights."
There is room for debate about the Obama Administration's ultimate response to the events in Tehran, but voters last year opted for statesmanship rather than political posturing on the world stage. Carping from the cheap seats was not on the menu.
Faced with the unknowable depth, duration and consequences of opposition to Ahmadinejad's "victory," the White House is limiting itself to expressions of concern and disapproval, but carefully avoiding an active role in fomenting discord in Iran.
That's not good enough for today's Republicans in an age where the rule that politics stops at the water's edge is only a memory.
On the Today Show, McCain insists that Iran "should not be subjected to four more years of Ahmadinejad and the radical Muslim clerics,” urging that Obama “should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights.”
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, as befits his 2012 presidential delusions, as substantive as those self-promoted rumors about being considered as McCain's running mate last year, goes even further:
"The Administration’s silence in the face of Iran’s brutal suppression of democratic rights represents a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East. President Obama must take a strong public position in the face of violence and human rights abuses. We have a moral responsibility to lead the world in opposition to Iran’s extreme response to peaceful protests."
The Wall Street Journal is cheer-leading the GOP's macho moves on Obama, declaring three days after the election, "Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his approach to Iran in his first months in office. Even Jimmy Carter drew roughly appropriate conclusions about the Iranian regime after the hostages were taken in 1979."
Such static is no less damaging for being so predictable and feckless. McCain, for one, might want to think back to his own and Al Gore's experiences with a "sham of an election" in 2000 and consider how he would have responded to Iranian bloviating about "people being deprived of their rights."
There is room for debate about the Obama Administration's ultimate response to the events in Tehran, but voters last year opted for statesmanship rather than political posturing on the world stage. Carping from the cheap seats was not on the menu.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Cheney on the Couch
Stooping to psychobabble this Memorial Day weekend, I find myself wondering: What is the former Vice President, who evaded military service in his youth, trying to prove with his late-in-life display of extreme machismo? What fuels his tougher-than-thou attacks on Barack Obama, a Commander-in-Chief from a post-draft generation that did not have to face a public test of personal courage?
In his weekend address today, the President observes that "our survival as a nation came down not simply to the wisdom of our leaders or the resilience of our people, but to the courage and valor of our fighting men and women."
Below that simple statement of fact are many millions of individual struggles of conscience by young people over risking their lives for their country. (As one of them in World War II, I can testify to the fears as well as the courage of what is now called the Greatest Generation.)
In the 1960s, Dick Cheney resolved his own conflict by asking for and getting five draft deferments during the Vietnam war. Looking back, he said in a Washington Post interview, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service."
Ever since then, as a member of Congress, Secretary of Defense and Vice President, Cheney has been part of a process that sends young people to give their lives for their country--without the deeply felt experience of those like John McCain, who doesn't share his views on torture.
What's disturbing about this disconnection between rhetoric and reality is the sense that Dick Cheney is, at some level, driven to prove that his earlier choices in life are not the true test of his manhood. No reasonable person would argue that they are, but does he himself believe that?
However unfair it may be to put Cheney on the couch this way, there is an oblique recognition of the issue in Gail Collins' comment today:
“'To bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come,' snarled Dick Cheney in his 'no middle ground' speech. Although really, for the sake of the national mental health, it might be better if we all just ignore the former vice president until he agrees to undergo therapy."
That's not likely to happen, but it would help if lay Republican leaders would advise him to stop acting out in public.
In his weekend address today, the President observes that "our survival as a nation came down not simply to the wisdom of our leaders or the resilience of our people, but to the courage and valor of our fighting men and women."
Below that simple statement of fact are many millions of individual struggles of conscience by young people over risking their lives for their country. (As one of them in World War II, I can testify to the fears as well as the courage of what is now called the Greatest Generation.)
In the 1960s, Dick Cheney resolved his own conflict by asking for and getting five draft deferments during the Vietnam war. Looking back, he said in a Washington Post interview, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service."
Ever since then, as a member of Congress, Secretary of Defense and Vice President, Cheney has been part of a process that sends young people to give their lives for their country--without the deeply felt experience of those like John McCain, who doesn't share his views on torture.
What's disturbing about this disconnection between rhetoric and reality is the sense that Dick Cheney is, at some level, driven to prove that his earlier choices in life are not the true test of his manhood. No reasonable person would argue that they are, but does he himself believe that?
However unfair it may be to put Cheney on the couch this way, there is an oblique recognition of the issue in Gail Collins' comment today:
“'To bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come,' snarled Dick Cheney in his 'no middle ground' speech. Although really, for the sake of the national mental health, it might be better if we all just ignore the former vice president until he agrees to undergo therapy."
That's not likely to happen, but it would help if lay Republican leaders would advise him to stop acting out in public.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Ron Paul's Pure Pork
Even Fox News thinks he's "having his cake and eating it too" by giving constituents more earmark money than any member of Congress, but Ron Paul insists it's all in the name of his libertarian beliefs.
It's "like a tax credit," he explains about the $73 million for his district. "And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.
"But, because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years--if ever."
Paul, who insists that John McCain is just "grandstanding" in his opposition to pork, was then asked "who proposes the bridge or the highway or the school? How does that even get in there?"
"I have no idea," says the Congressman who has deeply felt ideas about everything else. "But the most important thing is to have transparency."
Is that clear?
It's "like a tax credit," he explains about the $73 million for his district. "And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.
"But, because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years--if ever."
Paul, who insists that John McCain is just "grandstanding" in his opposition to pork, was then asked "who proposes the bridge or the highway or the school? How does that even get in there?"
"I have no idea," says the Congressman who has deeply felt ideas about everything else. "But the most important thing is to have transparency."
Is that clear?
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Those Titillating Republicans
In all the hooha between Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh, the GOP is overlooking the fact that, by long tradition, John McCain is the titular head of their party.
That precept struck me in 1964 during a long conversation with former President Eisenhower. Discussing various issues, he clearly could not bring himself to mention Richard Nixon by name but kept calling him "the titular head of the party" as their 1960 candidate, even though Ike himself was the most recent Republican to occupy the White House.
This year, Republicans are no more enamored of McCain than Ike was of Nixon back then. Their 2008 candidate was non grata at the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, where they also pummeled their 21st century Ike, George W. Bush.
The only prominent national politician who seems to recognize McCain's standing is his former opponent, Barack Obama, who had the Arizonan at his side today as he ordered his administration to conduct a review of how contracts are awarded throughout the government.
At a White House meeting last week, McCain had needled the President about the extravagant cost of new helicopters for the Commander-in-Chief and this week is pressuring him to do something about earmarks in the budget.
While most Republicans are howling in the wilderness with Limbaugh and Steele, John McCain is acting every inch as the titular head of the party, the loyal opposition on substantive issues.
That precept struck me in 1964 during a long conversation with former President Eisenhower. Discussing various issues, he clearly could not bring himself to mention Richard Nixon by name but kept calling him "the titular head of the party" as their 1960 candidate, even though Ike himself was the most recent Republican to occupy the White House.
This year, Republicans are no more enamored of McCain than Ike was of Nixon back then. Their 2008 candidate was non grata at the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, where they also pummeled their 21st century Ike, George W. Bush.
The only prominent national politician who seems to recognize McCain's standing is his former opponent, Barack Obama, who had the Arizonan at his side today as he ordered his administration to conduct a review of how contracts are awarded throughout the government.
At a White House meeting last week, McCain had needled the President about the extravagant cost of new helicopters for the Commander-in-Chief and this week is pressuring him to do something about earmarks in the budget.
While most Republicans are howling in the wilderness with Limbaugh and Steele, John McCain is acting every inch as the titular head of the party, the loyal opposition on substantive issues.
Oink
As John McCain rails like King Lear, Barack Obama is doing Scarlett O'Hara ("I'll think about that tomorrow") over Congressional pork in the new budget.
Literally. The President is scheduled to speechify about wasteful spending today after his press secretary promised yesterday, "The rules of the road going forward for those many appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk will be done differently."
Getting between a member of Congress and meat for the voters back home is a dangerous move for a president, no matter how high his approval ratings.
"I don't think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer huffs, adding, "I, philosophically, believe that it would be an undermining of the Article I responsibilities given to the Congress of the United States if it were to abandon its right to add items that it believes are priorities for our country...That's our responsibility, and we ought to keep that responsibility."
So taxpayers will keep underwriting the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii, improving blueberry production in Georgia, cricket control in Utah and all those other vital expenditures in a crashing economy.
“When do we turn off the spigots?” McCain wailed on the Senate floor yesterday. “Haven’t we learned anything? Bills like this jeopardize our future.”
But, until some form of public financing for elections kicks in, projects like tattoo removal for former gang members will be a priority for insuring the future of his Congressional colleagues.
Literally. The President is scheduled to speechify about wasteful spending today after his press secretary promised yesterday, "The rules of the road going forward for those many appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk will be done differently."
Getting between a member of Congress and meat for the voters back home is a dangerous move for a president, no matter how high his approval ratings.
"I don't think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer huffs, adding, "I, philosophically, believe that it would be an undermining of the Article I responsibilities given to the Congress of the United States if it were to abandon its right to add items that it believes are priorities for our country...That's our responsibility, and we ought to keep that responsibility."
So taxpayers will keep underwriting the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii, improving blueberry production in Georgia, cricket control in Utah and all those other vital expenditures in a crashing economy.
“When do we turn off the spigots?” McCain wailed on the Senate floor yesterday. “Haven’t we learned anything? Bills like this jeopardize our future.”
But, until some form of public financing for elections kicks in, projects like tattoo removal for former gang members will be a priority for insuring the future of his Congressional colleagues.
Friday, February 20, 2009
McCain's Love Life, Case Closed
Vicki Iseman and the right to privacy win. The New York Times and careless reporting lose. That's the score on the convoluted settlement today of a libel suit over an article suggesting that the Washington lobbyist was having affair with John McCain.
A year ago, a Times examination of the candidate's history with lobbyists, began:
"Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
"A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself--instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him..."
This assertion raised a howl at the time, even leading the Times' Public Editor to conclude that "if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
In today's settlement of Iseman's suit, the Times publishes a curt editor's note that it "did not intend to conclude that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust."
Far from a retraction, this is supplemented with a piece by Ms. Iseman's lawyers arguing that their client "is not a government or public official, and in our view, not even a public figure. Had this case proceeded to trial, the judicial determination of whether she is entitled to the protections afforded a private citizen would have been the subject of a ferocious, pivotal battle...That judicial contest has now been concluded in this instance, but the issue deserves ongoing scrutiny, certainly in our schools of law and journalism, but also in the arena of public debate.
"Indeed, the essential quality of our public discourse, even the very character of our national culture, will be heavily influenced by why, where, and how we draw this line."
In this case, the Times gets off without a financial penalty or even an outright apology, but the settlement strikes a blow against defining journalistic deviancy down.
A year ago, a Times examination of the candidate's history with lobbyists, began:
"Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
"A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself--instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him..."
This assertion raised a howl at the time, even leading the Times' Public Editor to conclude that "if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
In today's settlement of Iseman's suit, the Times publishes a curt editor's note that it "did not intend to conclude that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust."
Far from a retraction, this is supplemented with a piece by Ms. Iseman's lawyers arguing that their client "is not a government or public official, and in our view, not even a public figure. Had this case proceeded to trial, the judicial determination of whether she is entitled to the protections afforded a private citizen would have been the subject of a ferocious, pivotal battle...That judicial contest has now been concluded in this instance, but the issue deserves ongoing scrutiny, certainly in our schools of law and journalism, but also in the arena of public debate.
"Indeed, the essential quality of our public discourse, even the very character of our national culture, will be heavily influenced by why, where, and how we draw this line."
In this case, the Times gets off without a financial penalty or even an outright apology, but the settlement strikes a blow against defining journalistic deviancy down.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
McCain, Secretary of Defense?
If the new president is serious about Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State as he follows Lincoln's "team of rivals" approach, Barack Obama should consider John McCain as Secretary of Defense.
When the two meet on Monday, at Obama's suggestion it turns out, "sitting down in a serious way" to "find common ground," the discussion might include a role for McCain in the new administration.
McCain's maverick history makes it unlikely that Senate Republicans will look to him for leadership. (One of them, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, is already accusing him of betraying Republican principles.)
Despite campaign differences over the past in Iraq, Obama and McCain, if they teamed up, would be faced with implementing an exit strategy being firmed up in the last days of the Bush Administration and shifting military attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The political aspect is not in much dispute
As Gen. David Petraeus' most vocal admirer, McCain is in a position to bring together the new Commander-in-Chief and the armed forces, and his abrasiveness, unlike that of the armchair warrior Donald Rumsfeld, could be effective in a Pentagon that needs strong leadership.
On the campaign trail, McCain persuaded a substantial number of voters that he was qualified to lead the nation on national security. As an Obama Administration focuses on saving the economy, he could provide leadership and reassurance in the war on terror.
If Obama is as generous and inclusive as he appears to be, bringing both of his chief rivals for the presidency on board would be a strong signal that national unity is possible.
When the two meet on Monday, at Obama's suggestion it turns out, "sitting down in a serious way" to "find common ground," the discussion might include a role for McCain in the new administration.
McCain's maverick history makes it unlikely that Senate Republicans will look to him for leadership. (One of them, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, is already accusing him of betraying Republican principles.)
Despite campaign differences over the past in Iraq, Obama and McCain, if they teamed up, would be faced with implementing an exit strategy being firmed up in the last days of the Bush Administration and shifting military attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The political aspect is not in much dispute
As Gen. David Petraeus' most vocal admirer, McCain is in a position to bring together the new Commander-in-Chief and the armed forces, and his abrasiveness, unlike that of the armchair warrior Donald Rumsfeld, could be effective in a Pentagon that needs strong leadership.
On the campaign trail, McCain persuaded a substantial number of voters that he was qualified to lead the nation on national security. As an Obama Administration focuses on saving the economy, he could provide leadership and reassurance in the war on terror.
If Obama is as generous and inclusive as he appears to be, bringing both of his chief rivals for the presidency on board would be a strong signal that national unity is possible.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Last Days of the Starbucks Life
On a day when Americans are keenly aware of economic hardships ahead, those symbols of Baby Boomer excess--Starbucks, Krispy Kreme, Ben and Jerry's--are giving voters free stuff, to promote their products, of course, but unintentionally taunting them with little luxuries they may soon not be able to afford.
Assuming a victory by Obama and his post-Boomer generation, David Brooks foresees "the irony...that they will be confronted by the problem for which they have the least experience and for which they are the least prepared: the problem of scarcity."
After decades of self-indulgence, Americans are suddenly facing the fact that what looked like a perpetual free ride to prosperity has a toll bridge up ahead, and once the election euphoria wears off, the hints that Obama has been tossing off about shared sacrifice during the campaign will become a central reality of our new political life.
In setting priorities for recovery, the incoming government will have to make hard and unpopular decisions.
"In the next few years," Brooks writes about the new reality, "the nation’s wealth will either stagnate or shrink. The fiscal squeeze will grow severe. There will be fiercer struggles over scarce resources, starker divisions along factional lines. The challenge for the next president will be to cushion the pain of the current recession while at the same time trying to build a solid fiscal foundation so the country can thrive at some point in the future."
When all the Election Night celebration is over, America is facing one hell of a morning-after.
Assuming a victory by Obama and his post-Boomer generation, David Brooks foresees "the irony...that they will be confronted by the problem for which they have the least experience and for which they are the least prepared: the problem of scarcity."
After decades of self-indulgence, Americans are suddenly facing the fact that what looked like a perpetual free ride to prosperity has a toll bridge up ahead, and once the election euphoria wears off, the hints that Obama has been tossing off about shared sacrifice during the campaign will become a central reality of our new political life.
In setting priorities for recovery, the incoming government will have to make hard and unpopular decisions.
"In the next few years," Brooks writes about the new reality, "the nation’s wealth will either stagnate or shrink. The fiscal squeeze will grow severe. There will be fiercer struggles over scarce resources, starker divisions along factional lines. The challenge for the next president will be to cushion the pain of the current recession while at the same time trying to build a solid fiscal foundation so the country can thrive at some point in the future."
When all the Election Night celebration is over, America is facing one hell of a morning-after.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
If Obama Loses
Forget all the rhetoric about four more years of Bush, Old Politics vs. New Politics and all that jazz. Absent any plausible reason for a late McCain surge and victory, the inescapable fact about an Obama loss would be an ugly truth to haunt American life for years to come.
Around the edges of all the opinion poll data about what will happen in just over 48 hours is an uneasiness that points to heavy turnout, early voting, the question of whether youth registration will convert into actual balloting, etc. as imponderables in this unusual election year that shows Obama outpolling McCain on almost every issue of voter trust.
But the GOP elephant in the room is race: How many "undecideds" are rummaging around the coded attacks on Barack Obama as a wealth-spreading, terrorist-friendly Muslim radical to justify their bone-deep need to vote against a black man as president?
If enough of them do, how can we explain it to ourselves--and the rest of the world?
No last-minute scare tactics about taxes or lame McCain cameos on SNL will suffice to explain away what, given all the truths of this campaign, would be a lasting American shame.
Around the edges of all the opinion poll data about what will happen in just over 48 hours is an uneasiness that points to heavy turnout, early voting, the question of whether youth registration will convert into actual balloting, etc. as imponderables in this unusual election year that shows Obama outpolling McCain on almost every issue of voter trust.
But the GOP elephant in the room is race: How many "undecideds" are rummaging around the coded attacks on Barack Obama as a wealth-spreading, terrorist-friendly Muslim radical to justify their bone-deep need to vote against a black man as president?
If enough of them do, how can we explain it to ourselves--and the rest of the world?
No last-minute scare tactics about taxes or lame McCain cameos on SNL will suffice to explain away what, given all the truths of this campaign, would be a lasting American shame.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
McCain, Obama: The Authenticity Gap
What's left of the real Barack Obama and John McCain after all this nonstop being seen and heard? If Obama wins the prize Tuesday, it may be, behind all the political jabber, a victory in the media war of attrition not to lose his authentic self.
After eight years of having a beer with a nobody-there George W. Bush, voters gave the nominations to candidates who appeared to be most themselves--Obama over the seen-as-calculating Hillary Clinton, McCain over an empty suit known as Mitt Romney.
If McCain goes down, it will be due mainly to his mystifying decision to keep being the semi-fictitious figure required to appease the Far Right in the primaries and not reverting to the straight talker who won over so many media people and independent voters in 2000.
John F. Kennedy summed up the problem in 1960 saying he sometimes felt sorry for Richard Nixon: “It must be hard getting up every morning trying to decide who you’re going to be that day.”
In these past months, there have been too many McCains, with only rare glimpses of the real one, who has fittingly enough surrounded himself with fictitious figures like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.
Obama's most crucial campaign decision was to try to hold on, as much as possible, to his authentic self--a problem he recognized early in the process, telling Tim Russert with a worried smile that his wife and friends thought he was still there behind all the hype and admitting on 60 Minutes that the “attempt to airbrush your life...is exhausting.”
That he has made it seem effortless is an important part of his achievement, but if wins, it won't get any easier, as foreshadowed by his irritation with photographers last evening as he took his daughter out for Halloween.
In the White House, it will be four years of trick-or-treat, to say nothing of hide-and-seek with the media trying to find the "real" Barack Obama.
After eight years of having a beer with a nobody-there George W. Bush, voters gave the nominations to candidates who appeared to be most themselves--Obama over the seen-as-calculating Hillary Clinton, McCain over an empty suit known as Mitt Romney.
If McCain goes down, it will be due mainly to his mystifying decision to keep being the semi-fictitious figure required to appease the Far Right in the primaries and not reverting to the straight talker who won over so many media people and independent voters in 2000.
John F. Kennedy summed up the problem in 1960 saying he sometimes felt sorry for Richard Nixon: “It must be hard getting up every morning trying to decide who you’re going to be that day.”
In these past months, there have been too many McCains, with only rare glimpses of the real one, who has fittingly enough surrounded himself with fictitious figures like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.
Obama's most crucial campaign decision was to try to hold on, as much as possible, to his authentic self--a problem he recognized early in the process, telling Tim Russert with a worried smile that his wife and friends thought he was still there behind all the hype and admitting on 60 Minutes that the “attempt to airbrush your life...is exhausting.”
That he has made it seem effortless is an important part of his achievement, but if wins, it won't get any easier, as foreshadowed by his irritation with photographers last evening as he took his daughter out for Halloween.
In the White House, it will be four years of trick-or-treat, to say nothing of hide-and-seek with the media trying to find the "real" Barack Obama.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Conservative Case for Obama
As polls show pushy Palinism hurting McCain's chances, the struggle for the Republican future is reflected by two traditional conservatives, Peggy Noonan and George Will.
In the Wall Street Journal today, Noonan, who wrote speeches for Reagan and Bush I, makes "the case for Obama" this way:
"He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.
"A great moment: When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd 'I have no comment,' or 'We shouldn't judge.' Instead he said, 'My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to."
In the Washington Post, Pultizer-Prize columnist George Will, under a heading of "Call Him John the Careless," makes the conservative case against McCain:
"From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days...
"Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: 'So, who is the villain?'"
No liberal could make the case for Obama and against McCain any better than that.
In the Wall Street Journal today, Noonan, who wrote speeches for Reagan and Bush I, makes "the case for Obama" this way:
"He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.
"A great moment: When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd 'I have no comment,' or 'We shouldn't judge.' Instead he said, 'My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to."
In the Washington Post, Pultizer-Prize columnist George Will, under a heading of "Call Him John the Careless," makes the conservative case against McCain:
"From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days...
"Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: 'So, who is the villain?'"
No liberal could make the case for Obama and against McCain any better than that.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wisdom of the Aged
Andrew Sullivan cites her for commentary "that knocks your socks off," but with the restraint more seemly for age, I just tip my hat to 82-year-old Helen Philpot of Texas and her college friend, Margaret Schmechtman of Maine, who have started an octogenarian blog that really rocks.
Ms. Philpot does not mince words:
"I am surprised that some of you are up in arms about my calling Sarah Palin a bitch, or John McCain an ass or even George Bush a jackass...Some of you are actually praying for me...
"Well this old broad is hurt...I am so sorry if I have offended any of you...
"New rules:
"I will stop calling George Bush a jackass when he stops calling me a terrorist: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
"I will stop calling John McCain an ass when he stops calling Barack Obama a socialist at every dog and pony show on the Straight Talk Express tour.
"I will stop calling Sarah Palin a bitch when she stops calling Obama a terrorist sympathizer. And I will stop calling Sarah Palin a bitch when she stops calling the parts of the country where I don’t live more Pro-American than the part of the country where I do live. And I will definitely stop calling Sarah Palin a bitch when she stops acting like a bitch.
"I’m old enough to remember the Republican party of Barry Goldwater--when the party stood for fiscal responsibility, small government and personal freedoms. I remember when I could talk with friends about politics and just agree to disagree. And then religious nut cases decided that if you didn’t agree with them you were immoral. So they went and elected George Bush President so he could take the Republican Party from being a party full of respectable people to a party filled with asses, jackasses and yes--bitches like Sarah Palin."
Ms. Philpot has a good memory and a salty tongue that makes some of her contemporaries (like me) sound timid and lame.
Ms. Philpot does not mince words:
"I am surprised that some of you are up in arms about my calling Sarah Palin a bitch, or John McCain an ass or even George Bush a jackass...Some of you are actually praying for me...
"Well this old broad is hurt...I am so sorry if I have offended any of you...
"New rules:
"I will stop calling George Bush a jackass when he stops calling me a terrorist: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
"I will stop calling John McCain an ass when he stops calling Barack Obama a socialist at every dog and pony show on the Straight Talk Express tour.
"I will stop calling Sarah Palin a bitch when she stops calling Obama a terrorist sympathizer. And I will stop calling Sarah Palin a bitch when she stops calling the parts of the country where I don’t live more Pro-American than the part of the country where I do live. And I will definitely stop calling Sarah Palin a bitch when she stops acting like a bitch.
"I’m old enough to remember the Republican party of Barry Goldwater--when the party stood for fiscal responsibility, small government and personal freedoms. I remember when I could talk with friends about politics and just agree to disagree. And then religious nut cases decided that if you didn’t agree with them you were immoral. So they went and elected George Bush President so he could take the Republican Party from being a party full of respectable people to a party filled with asses, jackasses and yes--bitches like Sarah Palin."
Ms. Philpot has a good memory and a salty tongue that makes some of her contemporaries (like me) sound timid and lame.
Wednesday Night Live
The presidential campaign peaked on prime-time TV with Barack Obama's 30-minute, $5 million valentine to the American middle class, followed by John McCain on Larry King, free of charge, expressing pride and confidence in Sarah Palin, while admitting their maverickosity leads to an occasional difference of opinion.
Later, Obama upstaged himself on the Daily Show by simultaneously appearing live in Florida to embrace and be embraced by Bill Clinton. In contrast, George W. Bush seemed to be in a presidential protection program as far as McCain was concerned.
A visitor from another planet could easily tell who is ahead by Obama's concentration on hopes for the future, while McCain and Palin continued to belabor fears about their opponent's past, adding a Palestinian professor to their pantheon of scary passing acquaintances.
The political pundits have now been reduced to debating the reliability of public opinion polls to produce suspense in a race that seems to be headed in one direction even as a deciding World Series game ended competition in the other national pastime.
Later, Obama upstaged himself on the Daily Show by simultaneously appearing live in Florida to embrace and be embraced by Bill Clinton. In contrast, George W. Bush seemed to be in a presidential protection program as far as McCain was concerned.
A visitor from another planet could easily tell who is ahead by Obama's concentration on hopes for the future, while McCain and Palin continued to belabor fears about their opponent's past, adding a Palestinian professor to their pantheon of scary passing acquaintances.
The political pundits have now been reduced to debating the reliability of public opinion polls to produce suspense in a race that seems to be headed in one direction even as a deciding World Series game ended competition in the other national pastime.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wrong-Way McCain
In this final week, the former Navy flier is piloting his campaign with the navigational skills of Douglas "Wrong Way" Corrigan, who took off for California 70 years ago and ended up in Ireland and as part of American folklore.
John McCain, whose destination is the support of independent voters, keeps flying in the face of all experience that shows they are averse to negative campaigning by escalating his attacks on Barack Obama as a Socialist, "wealth spreader" and, catchiest of all, "redistributionist."
As he has throughout the year, McCain seems almost obsessively focused on the Rightmost Republican base, voters who certainly don't need persuading to reject Obama, by picking Sarah Palin as a running mate rather than a centrist and by giving campaign crowds red meat rather than acting presidential and concentrating on issues.
With Palin as his co-pilot and Joe the Plumber navigating, McCain seems destined to end this flight in electoral oblivion.
John McCain, whose destination is the support of independent voters, keeps flying in the face of all experience that shows they are averse to negative campaigning by escalating his attacks on Barack Obama as a Socialist, "wealth spreader" and, catchiest of all, "redistributionist."
As he has throughout the year, McCain seems almost obsessively focused on the Rightmost Republican base, voters who certainly don't need persuading to reject Obama, by picking Sarah Palin as a running mate rather than a centrist and by giving campaign crowds red meat rather than acting presidential and concentrating on issues.
With Palin as his co-pilot and Joe the Plumber navigating, McCain seems destined to end this flight in electoral oblivion.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama's Southern Surge
With a week to go, more than a million ballots have been cast in each of three swing states--Georgia, North Carolina and Florida--foreshadowing a record early turnout across the country.
The Solid South, which, in pre-civil rights days was a segregationist stronghold for Democrats, is showing signs of breaking out of the Republican redoubt it has been ever since.
Polls are showing Obama's lead in Virginia widening, and the Institute for Southern Studies reports that in North Carolina "a perfect storm of factors have come together for Democrats in 2008, including: a widespread sentiment for change, frustration over the tough hit on NC's economy, Obama's ability to mobilize a sizable number of core voters in NC, lack of excitement among religious conservatives for McCain--even same-day voter registration, which tends to boost youth and African-American turnout."
With all this going on below the Mason-Dixon line, next week's voting promises to shake up the electoral map in a way that goes beyond the obvious contest between new voters and old biases.
The Solid South, which, in pre-civil rights days was a segregationist stronghold for Democrats, is showing signs of breaking out of the Republican redoubt it has been ever since.
Polls are showing Obama's lead in Virginia widening, and the Institute for Southern Studies reports that in North Carolina "a perfect storm of factors have come together for Democrats in 2008, including: a widespread sentiment for change, frustration over the tough hit on NC's economy, Obama's ability to mobilize a sizable number of core voters in NC, lack of excitement among religious conservatives for McCain--even same-day voter registration, which tends to boost youth and African-American turnout."
With all this going on below the Mason-Dixon line, next week's voting promises to shake up the electoral map in a way that goes beyond the obvious contest between new voters and old biases.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
McCain's Last Stand
As Barack Obama was promising voters "We're not going to let George Bush pass the torch to John McCain," the GOP candidate himself was in, of all places, Waterloo (Iowa), trying to persuade Tom Brokaw and himself that, on the 41st anniversary of being shot down in Vietnam, his campaign for president was not going down in flames now.
As Brokaw fired off poll numbers, quotes about Sarah Palin's shortcomings and McCain's own words about Bush that evoked the answer, "So do we share a common philosophy of the Republican Party? Of course," the old warrior resolutely insisted on his own version of reality, often using air quotes to denote sarcasm about those who say otherwise and consider Obama preferable.
In this hermetically sealed world, the polls are all wrong except for Zogby (which insists on using a model that forces equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats into an outdated mold) and voters will wake up on November 4th and elect the maverick McCain of 2000.
In this Rip Van Winkle universe, McCain on the economy is FDR in the Great Depression and Harry Truman upsetting Tom Dewey in 1948.
Listening to all this must have been an out-of-body experience for Brokaw, who ended the ordeal with valedictory-like "hope this has been a better Sunday than it was 41 years ago," to which McCain responded, "I appreciate your many years of informing the American people. You've come a long way from South Dakota, but you never forgot where you came from."
So today's Meet the Press ended with an exchange of good wishes by two elderly gentlemen, one of whom will ease back into retirement from TV next year and the other into being the titular head of a minority opposition party from his seat in the US Senate.
As Brokaw fired off poll numbers, quotes about Sarah Palin's shortcomings and McCain's own words about Bush that evoked the answer, "So do we share a common philosophy of the Republican Party? Of course," the old warrior resolutely insisted on his own version of reality, often using air quotes to denote sarcasm about those who say otherwise and consider Obama preferable.
In this hermetically sealed world, the polls are all wrong except for Zogby (which insists on using a model that forces equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats into an outdated mold) and voters will wake up on November 4th and elect the maverick McCain of 2000.
In this Rip Van Winkle universe, McCain on the economy is FDR in the Great Depression and Harry Truman upsetting Tom Dewey in 1948.
Listening to all this must have been an out-of-body experience for Brokaw, who ended the ordeal with valedictory-like "hope this has been a better Sunday than it was 41 years ago," to which McCain responded, "I appreciate your many years of informing the American people. You've come a long way from South Dakota, but you never forgot where you came from."
So today's Meet the Press ended with an exchange of good wishes by two elderly gentlemen, one of whom will ease back into retirement from TV next year and the other into being the titular head of a minority opposition party from his seat in the US Senate.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Generation Gap in the McCain-Palin Split
Attack dogs can get carried away and turn on their handlers, the Republican campaign now seems to be learning, as open warfare breaks out in anonymous diatribes.
McCain advisers, CNN reports, are becoming "increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin 'going rogue'" while her people are complaining about what they feel was "a damaging and mismanaged roll-out."
According to McCain sources, "Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls--recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent--'irritating' even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan."
McCain aides tell Politico Palin was "simply unready--'green,' sloppy and incomprehensibly willing to criticize McCain for, for instance, not attacking Sen. Barack Obama for his relationship with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."
The rift seems to go beyond the usual friction in a losing campaign. "She is a diva," a McCain adviser complains. "She takes no advice from anyone. She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."
The generation gap in the ticket is fast becoming a chasm, as the McCain people see his last chance fading fast and the Palin supporters start looking for excuses and positioning their candidate for the future. If the ugliness grows, they may all lose their credibility.
McCain advisers, CNN reports, are becoming "increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin 'going rogue'" while her people are complaining about what they feel was "a damaging and mismanaged roll-out."
According to McCain sources, "Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls--recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent--'irritating' even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan."
McCain aides tell Politico Palin was "simply unready--'green,' sloppy and incomprehensibly willing to criticize McCain for, for instance, not attacking Sen. Barack Obama for his relationship with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."
The rift seems to go beyond the usual friction in a losing campaign. "She is a diva," a McCain adviser complains. "She takes no advice from anyone. She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."
The generation gap in the ticket is fast becoming a chasm, as the McCain people see his last chance fading fast and the Palin supporters start looking for excuses and positioning their candidate for the future. If the ugliness grows, they may all lose their credibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)