For non- McCain = Bush's Third Term commenting, use this thread.

This is an Open Thread.

Eric Boehlert writes:

CNN.com announced last week that among McCain's top political priorities for the Republican convention was his "need to make it clear that his first term will not be Bush's third term." . . . [I]f McCain did pull off the great escape, it was only thanks to the press and the way eager journalists pitched in to erase Bush from the political picture.

Boehlert tactfully ignores the main reason Bush went off the radar - Sarah Palin. While it is true that the Media went after Palin, with the loud cheers of the Left blogs in the background, the cost of this obsession is obvious now - George W. Bush became the forgotten man. To the detriment of Obama and Democrats. More . .

Discussing the Left blog teeth gnashing over the Obama response to Sarah Palin, Patrick Ruffini gets at the misguided nature of the complaints:

The netroots is engaged in some spirited discussion about the lameness of Obama's responses to Palin. But the problem, and what I believe this . . . gets at, is that Democrats look at everything about negative politics through the prism of response rather than attack, defense rather than offense.

Michael Dukakis's failure to respond in 1988 has become something of a creation myth, spawning the legendary Clinton war room in 1992. Their job? Leave no attack unanswered. Except the Clinton War Room was about something else too. Attack.

(Emphasis supplied.) And attack on narratives is the point too. The GOP's tactical attacks have always meshed with its strategic goal of negatively branding the Dems as otherworldly, socialist, America haters. The Politics of Paranoia is the GOP game. But in 2008, the game should belong to the Democrats. Because of GEORGE W. BUSH. McCain = Bush's Third Term has to be the underlying theme of everything the Obama campaign does. I would only discuss Sarah Palin if it helped feed that theme. Otherwise, ignore her. (See also Ezra Klein's smart take on this.)

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias captures the dichotomy:

George W. Bush has outlined a doctrine that he calls “preemption” but that’s really prevention or “anticipatory self-defense.” It holds that we should attack other countries that might attack us at some future point even if we have no particular evidence of a specific or imminent plan to do so. As we also know, John McCain agrees with this doctrine. Sarah Palin . . . outlined a different position, advancing an imminent threat standard.

. . . Which naturally raises the question of whether or not McCain discussed the issue of the Bush doctrine, or preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense, before putting her on the ticket.

That is a good question. Hopefully the Media will ask John McCain about the Bush Doctrine and whether he now agrees with Bush's preventive war doctrine that led to the Iraq Debacle or with Palin's sensible "imminent threat" standard.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Tim Kaine is on Morning Joe right now and if he is signalling where the Obama campaign is going in this campaign, I strongly applaud.

When asked about Sarah Palin by Andrea Mitchell, Kaine said "The issue is John McCain" and his adherence to the policies of George W. Bush.

Kaine said this campaign is about the real issues that effects the lives of Americans. And Kaine just said something very good - "John McCain is not going to win this election by hiding behind Sarah Palin." Good stuff. I think Kaine is on to something. Here is an idea for Obama surrogates when asked about Sarah Palin - "John McCain wants to talk about Sarah Palin, Barack Obama talks about how he will help solve the problems of average Americans." A good job by Tim Kaine this morning. Circulate a tape of this appearance to your surrogates Obama campaign.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Now that Cindy McCain's prescription drug abuse is back in the news, let's take a look at Sen. John McCain's drug warrior record:

John McCain is a hawk in the war on drugs. One standard for his wife, another for everyone else.

His voting record on drugs, after his wife's problems: [More....]

Kid Rock and Leonard Skynyrd performing at Fashion Rocks last week. This was my favorite segment of the show, it's great if you can see it on a tv. The audience is loving it, check out Paula Abdul dancing at her seat.

I'm at the beach in Clearwater, FL for my annual Lexis/Nexis Legal Advisory Board Meeting. Last year Lexis took us to Madrid which was awesome, but this is very nice too. (We've also been to Canada twice (Lake Louise, Calgary and the Canadian side of Niagra Falls), Bermuda, New York, Palm Beach and Palm Springs. One we got to go to Dayton, OH where all the massive Lexis servers are, It's on it's own campus and the seurity to get into that part was tighter than at any airport. Have I mentioned how much I love Lexis-Nexis?) [More...]

Barack Obama will appear this weekend on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live. Expect Republican outrage that Obama is acting like a celebrity, even as they shop Sarah Palin out to People magazine and despite John McCain's own appearance on last season's finale.

Sarah Palin shows her inexperience on foreign policy issues. She's quite defensive as well.

Transcript here.[ More...]

John McCain defending preemptive war against Iraq:

Sarah Palin arguing that going to war is a last resort against an "imminent strike" against the American People:

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Charles Babington, one of several AP writers who have been criticized for their unfavorable coverage of the Obama campaign, has noticed that major newspapers have noticed that the McCain campaign is truth-challenged.

A New York Times headline accuses the McCain Campaign of distortion:

Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy

Language in a Washington Post headline is even sharper:

McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive

[more...]

Some commenters have cited this White House document as a delineation of the Bush Doctrine. The key portion I think is this:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

MORE . . .