Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
NYtoLA
Published Letters: 8
What McCain is actually saying is far more ridiculous than what he appears to be saying. What is a crazier idea:
A) I don't mind leaving troops in Iraq for a long time, because I think if we fight it out for another ten or twenty years we can accomplish real change.
or
B) Within 2-4 years, Iraq will be a stable, peaceful, democratic state with excellent U.S. relations, and we will have a moderately-sized group of soldiers there which will never be attacked by enemy forces.
I would say that option B) wins by quite a bit, in similar fashion to his ridiculous speech of a few weeks back where in McCain proclaimed that "in the future, President McCain has won the Iraq War and caught Osama bin Laden."
What I'm saying is: yes, the Democrats are hitting him for the wrong thing, in a way, but is it really their responsibility to explain his idiotic and arrogant position to the public if he cannot do that himself? Also, if his strategy is to keep fighting until U.S. troops are no longer in danger there, then ipso facto, his strategy is to keep fighting in Iraq for many years to come. So I don't believe it's unfair to characterize his position that way, much as it's not unfair to characterize the position of a "Shock and Awe" supporter as: "he doesn't care about civilian casualties," even though that person would say, "I just believe in use of massive initial force when invading a country."
"The so-called "compromise" bill that was passed in the House today with regards to the revision of long-standing American surveillance law is nothing more than a perverse capitulation to the demands of the hard right cabal that has hijacked the Grand Old Party. As I am a liberal Democrat, the Obama campaign can be almost certain to receive my vote (and the votes of those who, like me, are far to the left end of the spectrum on most issues), but that doesn't give future President Obama the right to trample on my ideals while spouting feel-good rhetoric about massive waves of change. The Senator from Illinois says that he will do his best to "closely monitor the program" of unconstitutional spying if he is elected, so does this mean that Barack Obama believes, like Bush and company, that the President has the power to eavesdrop on domestic communications without a warrant, and to demand that large corporations break the law with no consequences? This bill is a travesty; it codifies into the law of the land Nixon's infamous misapprehension that "when the President does it, it's not illegal." Senator Obama's campaign may win a few extra votes in swing states because of his support of this preposterous imposition on the privacy rights of Americans, but he is on the brink of losing the essence of his political meme: that he represents real changes to the workings of Washington, and that he has the courage to stand up to the powerful even when it might hurt him in the polls.
P.S.: You can still have my vote, but you cannot have my money. I suspect I am not the only Democrat who feels this way at the moment. Senator Obama will have to work very hard to regain the full support of Democratic voters who believe in the spirit of the Bill of Rights."
I think this is the kind of thing a to which a politician like Obama might be sensitive; an insinuation that at heart he is "just another corrupt politician," but without a nonsensical overreach such as, "I'm voting for McCain because of this." It seems to me that making the "power of the purse" claim is more effective than making a "ballot box" claim, because the latter is obviously a bluff. I urge anyone concerned about the FISA issue to let Obama know he doesn't have a free ride with "high-information voters" just because he is a Democrat.
Glenn--
As usual, your post is enjoyable and informative. However, I think you may have missed an important ancillary reason that the falsehoods about "the American people" are so often allowed to stand unchallenged. Put simply, there appears to be broad agreement amongst the mainstream pundit's circle that there is no overlap between "the American People" (or, "Real Americans") and people with liberal views or lifestyles ("the Left"). So if 60% of voters want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, all that means is that either a) those voters are not Real Americans, or b) those voters have been hoodwinked by the Far Left. Taken in this light, Liasson's comments and similar remarks are even more offensive, but a contextual world where the left-wing position is necessarily never representative of the "American People's position" makes it so that, in the eye of the speaker, this kind of statement will always be true.
What shocks me about the McCain-Palin campaign's reaction to this report is how illogical they have been in their response. On the one hand, they claim that the report shows she did nothing wrong; therefore, they argue, she is totally off the hook. But on the other hand, they claim that the report's conclusions are invalid because the investigation was too tainted by partisanship. One wants to stand on top of a tall object with a megaphone, yelling, "What the hell are you talking about!? THIS MAKES NO SENSE!" I guess that's why you have a blog.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
