McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
« Katon Dawson's On The Move | Main | The Real ACORN Scandal? » Krauthammer Makes The Case For McCain24 Oct 2008 10:02 am
The Great K writes:
Comments (42)
Charles Krauthammer wants people to forget the campaign that John McCain just ran. Sure, Obama made some cheap allegations too. But McCain ran one of the most inept and dishonest campaigns in recent history. Erratic is not a cheap talking point. It's a euphemism for what really ails McCain: he's nuts and he has nowhere near the temperament necessary to be President. 
Krauthammer seems to have no problem with the fact that McCain finds it acceptable for the United States, via the CIA, to conduct torture. Krauthammer seems to have no problem with the fact that McCain's friend Lindsey Graham doesn't believe in habeas corpus (e.g. for Guantanamo detainees). Krauthammer seems to have no problem with the fact that McCain has chosen to support the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. So I have a problem with Krauthammer's "case for McCain."
His foreign policy argument is directed against a straw man. To say Obama has merely been cramming on foreign policy issues for a year seriously underestimates him. American voters got to see him go toe to toe with McCain on foreign policy in two debates, and Obama was judged the victor both times. And while we are at it, I daresay that McCain is not the "most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker" in the Senate. Remember, this is the guy who had to be corrected by Lieberman about a fundamental point regarding Shia and Sunni; this is the guy singing about bombing Iran; this is the guy banging the drums for war with Iraq within months of 9-11 which took our focus off of Bin Laden and allowed the Taliban to regroup and emerge resurgent. We know this is a dangerous world. We have also chosen who we want to lead us through this dangerous world. Obama isn't winning in spite of his foreign policy. He is winning in large part because of it.
McCain is one of the least prepared, most ignorant Senators on foreign policy and on everything else. He may actually be dumber than Bush.
That actually made me laugh out loud. McCain is a mental midget.
Pahaha. Chuckie K's going down, down, down with the ship. Godspeed, you corrupt loaf-muncher.
Right. I enjoyed the process: "Yeah, I know the economy sucks, and you've lost your job and your 401(k) - but there are terrorists out there and they want to kill us!" Does it feel like anybody else that this is one of those, "Hey - look over there!" moments?
Hey K - But I'd admit you probably would have done a better job running his campaign form the inside.
Marc,
"Yeah, I know the economy sucks, and you've lost your job and your 401(k) - but there are terrorists out there and they want to kill us!" I think that Obama has also made a great point in that if we don't have a strong economy, we won't have the money for a strong military.
Man, that kind of tire-swinging makes me dizzy just reading about it.
The state of the economy is a National Security issue Mr. K.
McCain is wildly erratic and inconsistent. There are relatively few issues where I have any idea what McCain's actual preference is. He's criticized Obama for not standing against his own party, fair enough, but in pretty much every instance where McCain has strongly broken with his party his opinion has since reversed. How do you expect to get credit for breaking with your party if as soon as it matters you break right back. You get credit for being judged right or wrong not for pissing off the most people.
He's attacking Obama for calling it "the tragedy of 9/11"? Seriously? Mr. Krauthammer, exactly how many descriptive adjectives does Obama have to preface "9/11" with to prove his foreign policy/patriotism credentials?
Fail. Possibly epic fail. Because when I read his list of dire foreign policy emergencies, what immediately came to mind was a reminder that we really need someone steady at the helm, a long-term strategic thinker. Not some hothead who's going to declare "we are all wazirkistanis now" and make a point about honor and toughness with other people's lives. The top foreign policy thinker in the Senate is Biden, which is why Georgia expressed exasperation at McCain's upbeat phone calls and dispatch of two aides, and asked for Biden to come instead. Luger is also excellent, but I think Obama will listen to him, so it's all good there. Meanwhile John McCain seems to want to break off diplomatic relations with Spain rather than admit he misheard a question.
John McCain has never made an executive decision either, seeing as he's been a legislator for 30 years. By that logic, only Sarah Palin is qualified among the four to lead the country. I agree that Obama has run some negative ads, but CK misses several major points, not least of which is Obama's "negative" ads were all on policy differences. They may have misrepresented the man's positions, but that's hardly "palling around with terrorists"-level negativity, and the press' insistence on faux objectivity in reporting this equivocation is maddening. McCain chose his path when he hired Schmidt (or was forced to). Once that happened, there was no turning back.
"The Great K," huh? Now we know where you're coming from Marc. You tool.
Elrod gets it right. If this were a short, 4 week election, McCain's resume would've easily trumped Obama's. For that matter, it would've been a Clinton v McCain election. For better or worse, our protracted election season serves as an audition, where the candidates are judged by their campaign performances. It is no mean feat to stay on message for that long of a period. Bush won for that reason, and, let's be honest, McCain is losing for his inability to craft an image of consistency during the last six months. But, is that not an equally good basis on which to evaluate him?
Epic fail. When the shamans go mad, the tribe is doomed.
@TheNewDeterrence Obama's negative ads were all on policy differences? Really? What about the Keating 5 ad, or the one that made fun of how old/out of touch McCain is? Then there was the one about McCain having 7 houses, and the one focusing on how 3 of his 13 cars are foreign-made. Tough to call those ads policy-based.
"Now we know where you're coming from Marc. You tool." To be fair to Marc, I don't think he's a right-wing hack. I just think he's overly deferential to the Washington purveyors of Conventional Wisdom, like Krauthammer, even when they're clearly talking out of their asses. (Case in point: this article.)
A man . . who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? Which one is that again?
The first major executive decision of McCain's political career was Sarah Palin - an epic fail if ever there was one. A McCain administration would be an epic fail right along with it.
To be fair to Marc, I don't think he's a right-wing hack. I just think he's overly deferential to the Washington purveyors of Conventional Wisdom, like Krauthammer, even when they're clearly talking out of their asses. (Case in point: this article.) Or he was being a touch sarcastic and the original commenter missed it completely.
Funny, because CK wrote this on October 3rd about Obama: "...do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president."
The Senate's "most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker" is what they call McCain in Czechoslovakia too. And on the Iraq-Pakistan border.
Hmmm, where are the six paragraphs from the NYT endorsement of Obama? Are you intending to be "fair," aren't you?
How much money would you bet that the Reverend Wright doesn't make an appearance before the election? You can already see the storyline developing... McCain would have won but he was too honorable to bring up Reverend Wright. Yah right. This is a horrible year for Republicans. McCain actually did a good job keeping things competitive for as long as he did. But, somehow, this loss will be his fault. Bush and the Republican party caused McCain to lose both of his bids for the presidency.
Or he was being a touch sarcastic and the original commenter missed it completely. Ding! Ding! Ding! People, please turn on your sarcasm detectors.
He could have made it a lot shorter: "Only John McCain will give me the war with Iran that I long for with every fiber of my being."
Who gives a sh*t to what Charles Krauthammer has to say about McCain? Country has moved on from Krauthammer type of wingnuts. Most can't even stand his face on TV screen. Infact it is like one outdated white old man endorsing anouther outdated white old man.
Nah -- it's too late for Rev Wright to make an appearance. The Rev will be kept in McCain's back pocket until *after* the election, so that he can claim, in future, that he ran an honorable campaign. You heard it here first!
The McCain of 2008 is a "stalwart" like Charles Krauthammer is a pentathlete.
There is no commentator in the country of less worth than Charles Krauthammer. His thoughts demonstrate zero indenpendence. If he were receiving checks directly from the RNC, his columns wouldn't be one iota different. Kristol runs a very close second, but is still not as worthless as Krauthammer.
"do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate?" Dick Lugar is the GOP nominee? I don't think so. How come McCain has never been on the Foreign Relations committee if such a serious foreign policy thinker?
"Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.?" Not Sarah Palin. Canny pol but high school level thinker. Not John McCain. Loves war too much. Impulsive. (reference Palin, Sarah) Barack Obama? Hard to rattle. Thinks things through. Not so bad. Joe Biden? He'll wear them out at the negotiating table. Thanks for helping me out, Mr. K. Now I know how to vote.
Anyway he just goes off into nitpicking and delusional land with his articles
who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident? Is this guy serious? "Captain Krauthammer, we have a report that someone has referred to a terrorist attack using unsuitable and insufficiently militant language. The Outrage Police request that you take this one." "To the chopper!"
Here's my theory: Scott McLellan endorsed Obama because he saw which way the wind was blowing--and, maybe, for the reasons he said he did. Charles Fried and Colin Powell endorsed Obama to help ensure he would win. Charles Krauthammer endorsed McCain because he's confident McCain will lose.
Does this really help McCain? Krauthammer is saying McCain is the candidate of titanic struggles, ruthless enemies, etc. But I think the Endless War crowd is already voting for him. I think Krauthammer is really talking to the other conservative pundits here.
"the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate"
And what of Lieberman? I'd think that by definition he'd rank as more serious & knowledgeable, since McCain gets his info from him. Krauthammer is so, so pathetic. And to think there are people so benighted that they regard him, against the mountain of evidence, as an "intellectual". Wow. Hard times on the right.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Is he talking about the John McCain that was once lobbyists best friends, then their biggest enemy, then their best friend? Or the McCain that was solid conservative, the one that considered being Kerry's running mate or the current conservative John McCain?
Not to mention, the last time we had a president that was very strong on foreign policy, but didn't give a crap about domestic policy, led to the (actual) worst economy since the Great Depression. That was Richard Nixon.
Posted by Mo | October 24, 2008 10:08 AM