If this is the best McCain’s got….
In one sense, I suspect the Obama campaign is delighted that John McCain has effectively given up on attacking Hillary Clinton and is directing all of his fire on the Illinois senator. That’s largely the dynamic Obama wants.
But what of the Republican’s attacks themselves? So far, they’re pretty underwhelming.
“I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people,” McCain said in Columbus, Ohio, aiming squarely at Barack Obama.
Citing recent events in Pakistan, Cuba and Venezuela, McCain also brought up two of Obama’s most provocative foreign policy comments last year.
“Will the next President have the experience, the judgment experience informs, and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals?” McCain asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?”
If this sounds kind of familiar, it’s because Bush sat down with Fox News about a week ago, and he used a very similar line: “I certainly don’t know what he believes in,” the president said of Obama. “The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he’s going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad.”
It’s almost as if the GOP spin doctors have sent out word that these are the two talking points to emphasize. I have no idea why — they’re both wrong and dumb.
Obviously, when it comes to Republican attacks, truth and facts are utterly irrelevant — though I’m sure a New York Times pundit will no doubt praise McCain for lying about Obama in such a clumsy way — but it’s probably worth taking a moment to set the record straight.
First, Obama did not recommend “invading” Pakistan. For McCain to even make the claim suggests Mr. Straight Talk is going straight for Mr. Dishonesty, nine full months before the general election. What Obama did say is that he would be willing to authorize strikes against “high-value terrorist targets,” even in Pakistan, as part of an aggressive counter-terrorism campaign. If McCain believes we shouldn’t pursue high-value terrorist targets, maybe he should take a moment to explain to Americans why that is. I’m sure we’d all love to hear about it.
Second, Obama has not recommended embracing enemies, so much as he’s laid out a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy. If McCain believes we ought to prefer bombing Iran to talking to Iranians, I’m sure that, too, would make for a fascinating campaign discussion.
But taking a step back, does anyone seriously believe these are effective lines of attack? Obama wants to kill terrorists and try diplomacy with rivals. And this is bad, why?
There is a key point about Obama’s statements that we should sit down with our enemies without preconditions.
If you don’t have such a policy, any time you do have contact with an enemy, it can be painted as meaningful, as a concession, as suggesting that there has been some agreement allowing the meeting. So you get very isolated.
If you have a policy that the United States will sit at any table, you take away the ability of your adversaries to claim that any talks carry meaning or imply some sort of concession.
A policy of meeting all comers weakens are enemies and makes us stronger.
grrr . . . “our” enemies.
An interesting article on the Huffington Post regarding Obamas plans to ‘invade Pakistan’: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/cia-operation-similar-to-_n_87433.html
Then, of course, there is the fact that Bush did bomb Pakistan just a few weeks ago. Google Abu Laith al-Libi. He’s one of the many Al Qaida number threes we killed.
A policy of meeting all comers weakens are enemies and makes us stronger.
F-in A. When Bernie Sanders was mayor of Burlington, he used to have one day a week when anyone could just come talk to him about anything. That worked out pretty well for the dude.
It’s almost as if the GOP spin doctors have sent out word that these are the two talking points to emphasize. I have no idea why — they’re both wrong and dumb.
Noting that a set of remarks is “Wrong and dumb” and are “GOP talking points” is redundant.
The fact that this is demonstrably false is irrelevant. Goopers will repeat it endlessly. It’s what they do. (It’s also why they suck so bad at actual governing – they are completely unable to distinguish truth from falsehood where their ideology is concerned.)
“…Obama wants to kill terrorists and try diplomacy with rivals. And this is bad, why?”
Because you are referring to a Republican-owned media & Obama is a Democrat.
Therefore you will never hear the issues framed in that way.
The major difference McCain has with Obama is that if Obama had Bin Laden in his sights in Tora Bora, Obama would have taken him out and McCain would have let him go free.
As Danp says, we have already, within the past couple weeks, ‘invaded’ and ‘bombed’ Pakistan, without its permission, notifying it only after the mission began and was well underway. But I am sure the media does not note this in its coverage.
Also as for “…and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people,” McCain said in Columbus, Ohio…”, apparently McCain chooses to ignore the undisputable successes of Social Security and the other New Deal legislation, not to mention the ‘failed policies and tired philosophy’ that brought this country relative peace and prosperity from 1993-2000. Someone really needs to ask McCanine whether someone who is his age, 71, and depends on Social Security to survive, should feel failed by such government programs. IN fact, I think an advertisement by someone like the DNC should come out immediately, interviewing such folks, mostly of McCanine’s age, who depend on such ‘false promises’ and ‘tired philosophies’ to survive in this day and age.
It worked for Hillary right?
Danp: “Then, of course, there is the fact that Bush did bomb Pakistan just a few weeks ago.”
Exactly! That’s what we get for electing a foreign policy naif. 😉
“…a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people”
Was this part of McCain’s foreign policy line? Because I’m not sure how people separate from the government are supposed to conduct foreign policy. Seems almost like random words strung together.
Adding on to #9: McCain is flat out wrong. “Government” and “people” are not indistinct entities. The quality and vision of the people running the government makes all the difference in how the people (the masses) are viewed and treated*.
The current government/administration seems to feel that the people are not to be respected but rather that government exists to enrich and empower the already rich and powerful. That Obama has been able to tap into the people’s (the masses) frustration with the current government is why he is succeeding. The right may feel like Obama is heading a new cult rather than what this movement truly is, a demand by the people to be respected, the right to be heard. We the people. We the people.
*As an example, let’s take miners. The current admin feels they are disposable commodity, can be replaced. Heck, the poor mining companies can’t make a big enough profit without loosening of the safety regulations (safety costs money ya know). So get rid of the regs, the mining co’s get richer and the miners die. There are lots more replacements where they came from, right? They’re all indistiguishable, right?
A just administration would make the safety standards as strong as possible, protecting the unique individuals who are working hard to earn a living, individuals who have families, talents, dreams. If the mining companies have to spend a little more for safety, so be it. The company is stronger and worker morale is higher because the workers know that the company cares and respects them.
Just a thought.
I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change…
I love seeing McCain attack Obama’s message of change. Keep it up, Johnny!
I’ve always thought McCain would be a formidable opponent in November because of his appeal to the moderates and independents and his undeserved maverick image. People see him as a moderate and an agent of change and compromise.
But if persists in attacking Obama this way, it will only serve to tie him to the Bush Administration and the status quo.
He’s doing our job for us. Maybe, just for John, I will donate three dollars to the Presidential campaign fund this year. Nah.
A billion tons of payload for Iran, and not a one for Bin Laden.
Given the results of Pakistan’s latest election and the seeming demise of our bought-and-paid-for friend Musharraf, what does McCain think we should do to get the Islamic extremists in NW Pakistan that now have a truce with the Pakistani government? Obama laid-out the most pragmatic solution that if we are forced to go after the bin Laden camps we will. Is that preemptive enough for the neo-cons who are always talking about us extending our power to serve our national interests? McCain is painting himself as not the foreign policy hawk people are assuming he is but the sissy who will rely on the good graces of an unreliable foreign government to do our business for us.
“A return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people,” pretty well describes the Bush Administration on so many fronts. After all, isn’t the whole FISA brouha exactly about trusting the government more than the people by having the government wiretap US citizens without warrants and oversight? John, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.
“…to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people…”
This is what conservatives don’t understand: The Government is of, for, and by the PEOPLE!
Governemnt = people in a democracy!
Jesus!
citizen_pain… “People” is also corporations. Therefore, McCain is saying he wants more tax cuts for the rich because the government would just waste all that money on poor people.
When has a talking point being wrong and dumb ever stopped Republicans from repeating it ad nauseum before? Or for that matter, when has it triggered the media to set the record straight?
I think this election is going to be like the election of 1964, where the only question was how bad the Republicans were going to lose. And this time, we won’t have a moron from Texas in the White House, quietly getting us into war (Tonkin Gulf) while campaigning as the “peace” candidate. At least that will be the case without Hillary running.
First, Obama did not recommend “invading” Pakistan. For McCain to even make the claim suggests Mr. Straight Talk is going straight for Mr. Dishonesty, nine full months before the general election. What Obama did say is that he would be willing to authorize strikes against “high-value terrorist targets,” even in Pakistan, as part of an aggressive counter-terrorism campaign. If McCain believes we shouldn’t pursue high-value terrorist targets, maybe he should take a moment to explain to Americans why that is. I’m sure we’d all love to hear about it.
I saw teh debate where Obama said he’d try to nail Osama in Pakistan if their government refused to act.
Hilary blasted him for such “naivete.” Last I checked, this tactic didn’t work for her and it’s delightful to see that McCain doesn’t learn anything from her mistakes.
He also is recycling “inexperienced” and “all talk no action”.
Can’t wait for him to trot out the “Secret Muslim” bit and the kindergarten essays.
The headline should be:
McCain critical of CIA operation, claims Al-Libi should have been let free