home

Today in McCain Land

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:54:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This speaks for itself:

Charlie Black, a top adviser to Republican John McCain, apologized this afternoon for suggesting that another terrorist attack on US soil would help McCain's prospects. In an interview with Fortune magazine, Black declared, "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

Gosh, if only that would happen. Meanwhile, this headline proclaims the shocking news that John McCain hit his head on a low-hanging roof, while the article says it was a low-hanging door. Which was it, sir? A roof or a door? The world demands to know!

< Hillary and Obama to Jointly Campaign in Unity, N.H. | Feingold: Democrats Are Bush Enablers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Today in McCain Land | 48 comments (48 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In 2000, during peacetime, McCain ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    ... pushed and pushed George W. Bush, who didn't need much pushing, to start thinking about war with Iraq. Here is a snippet from McCain's speech during the 2000 Republican Convention:

    "Tomorrow, our party will nominate such a leader. George W. Bush believes in the greatness of America and the justice of our cause.... He knows well that there is no safe alternative to American leadership. And he will not squander this unique moment in history by allowing America to retreat behind empty threats, false promises, and uncertain diplomacy."

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/gopconvention/john_mccain.html

    He's itching to bomb Iran and keep fighting in  Iraq. This does not surprise me. The fact that a top advisor would let it slip does.  

    Huh? I fail to see a connection to Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:45:47 PM EST
    in that speech.  

    Parent
    Oh? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:24:41 PM EST
    His neoconservative street cred isn't apparent?

    "This new century will be an age of untold possibilities for us and for all mankind. Many nations now share our love of liberty and aspire to the ordered progress of democracy. But the world is still home to tyrants, haters and aggressors hostile to America and our ideals. We are obliged to seize this moment to help build a safer, freer and more prosperous world, completely free of the tyranny that made the last century such a violent age.

    We are strong, confident people. We know that our ideals, our courage, our ingenuity ensure our success. Isolationism and protectionism are fool's errands."

     Senator McCain truly believes in this administration's agenda, whatever personality differences they may have.  

    Parent

    You are quoting words from a speech (none / 0) (#26)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:10:22 AM EST
    McCain gave in 2004.  This bit refers to a speech he gave in 2000 when Bush was just getting into Office and Iraq (and 9/11) hadn't even happened yet.

    The speech in 2000 makes no mention of tyrants or anything else like that except for the few words bolded in the quote I responded too.  And that quote basically says that America needs to be strong.  I don't see that as directly pushing or encouraging Bush to start a war in Iraq.  

    I also read both speeches and while I could comment in more detail, I think I'll just pass on this one.  You guys can knock yourselves out trying to make this look like McCain was dying to go to war with Iraq for no reason at all.    

    Parent

    Whoops! I'm wrong. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:17:05 AM EST
    I just went back and read the speech from 2000 (actually 1999) and you did quote from that speech.  (The one he gave in 2004 had more mention to tyrants.)

    He also said this in that 1999 speech:

    We are strong, confident people. We know that our ideals, our courage, our ingenuity ensure our success. Isolationism and protectionism are fool's errands. We shouldn't build walls to the global success of our interests and values. Walls are for cowards, my friends, not for Americans. No nation complacent in its greatness will long sustain it. We are an unfinished nation. And we are not a people of half-measures. We who have found shelter beneath the great oak must care for it in our time with as much devotion as had the patriots who preceded us.

    This is an extraordinary time to be alive. We are so strong and prosperous that we can scarcely imagine the heights we could ascend if we have the will to make the climb. Yet I think each of us senses that America, for all our prosperity, is in danger of losing the best sense of herself: that there is a purpose to being an American beyond materialism.

    Personally, I think he was telling us that we should aspire to do better things because we are a great country.  

    There have been many tyrants in the last 50 years.  Saddam was only one of them.  

    Parent

    Wow, the hoops you ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:07:59 AM EST
    ... have to jump through to apologize for McCain! I've never before seen a Democrat jump through that many hoops to apologize for a war-mongering Republican.

    Then, you find out you were wrong!

    Those bolded words refer to Iraq. Any person who remembers the first Gulf War and the Republican-created tensions after it would know that.

    Which country were we inspecting on a daily basis? Which country was in the news every week? Which person had the dreaded WMD that necessitated a war?  

    McCain pushed America into the Iraq War because he knows that's when Vikings like him can shine.  

    Parent

    I specifically bolded ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
    ... certain words for the apologists. ;)

    Parent
    Election Year Wish List? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    So a top adviser suggests a terrorist attack would be good for his candidate.

    I would be bothered by the fact an adviser is so tone deaf that he would admit to that, but more depressing is the idea that hoping for such an event is now probably part of the wish list by some individuals in politics.

    Please don't do this (none / 0) (#20)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:35:36 PM EST
    Discussing whether a terrorist attack would benfit or hurt a particular candidate is NOT the same as wishing for such an attack to take place. The advisor was asked a straight question. He answered it honestly. I agree with his assessment, personally. McCain has better "security" credentials than Obama. A terrorist attack would tend to cause people to break toward him. But I absolutely refuse to believe that McCain or his advisor are hoping for such an attack.

    I wish we could stop playing "gotcha" and start focusing on serious issues.

    Parent

    I am SO TIRED (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:19:58 AM EST
    of gaffe politics.  This is the same nonsense we all got furious about when it was Hillary and RFK.

    Could we please stop?  Nobody hopes for terrorist attacks in order to boost their election prospects.  It's crap.

    Parent

    I disagree.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    I know it's now something that we want to believe....that there are forces at work within our nation encouraging war, conflict, and bloodshed....but I believe it to be true.  

    For example, weapons manufacturers don't go into business hoping their products won't sell.  And weapons manufacturers don't give their money to Democrats and Republicans hoping they won't use and purchase their wares upon taking power.

    Eisenhower tried to warn us...he knew all about it.

    Parent

    Err....s/b (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    I know it's not something we want to believe...

    I'm awful.

    Parent

    This is non-responsive (none / 0) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    to what I said, if you're replying to me.


    Parent
    I was... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    you said nobody roots for terror attacks...I think there are powers that be that do just that....root for and forment conflict and violence for their own selfish gain.

    Parent
    I personally know republicans that... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    hope for a terrorist attack so McSame can win.

    Parent
    Does that apply... (none / 0) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    ...to all the candidates or just the ones you like?

    Parent
    No, obviously (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    just the ones I like.  McCain is my all-time bestest hero, doncha know?

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#45)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    ...it wasn't McSame that came to mind when I read your comment.  

    Parent
    Did You Miss The PNAC Statement (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    From 2000 where they said that all they need is another Pearl Harbor?

    "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor..."

    cough, cough....


    Parent

    Dianem is bitter about ... (2.33 / 3) (#34)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:09:41 AM EST
    ... gaffe politics all of a sudden, why? Could it be that it was your bull that was gored this time?  

    Parent
    McCain is not "my bull" (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    I was annoyed when Clinton was hit over an obvious verbal gaffe (the "hard working Americans, white Americans" fiasco). I was annoyed when Michelle Obama was hit for saying she was proud of her country for the first time. I was annoyed when people distorted Ferraro's, Bill Clinton's, and Cuomo's words into racist attacks. I'm seriously just annoyed at a politic strategy that focuses on what somebody said wrong instead of what a candidate has to offer. Of course, it isn't going to change: it sells and it wins. Clinton ran a pretty straightforward "I am better" campaign, and lose. So did Kerry and Gore. The only way it seems like any candidate can win is by slamming their opponent at every opportunity and being as vague about policy as possible.

    Oh... and sly little inneuendo's aren't really appropriate here. You are expected to have something reasonably intelligent to say when you hit "post" ... more intelligent than some vague suggestion that the person you are commenting to is a Republican.

    Parent

    Oh, but Dianem (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    this little ripostes are so devilishly clever.  And such orginal thinking!  Can't you just hear the self-satisfied chuckles?

    Parent
    Don't jump to conclusions (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    I never said McCain was wishing for it. I said, "such an event is now probably part of the wish list by some individuals in politics". There is a vast gulf between those two statements and you jumped it.

    I never mentioned my thoughts on McCain at all as those thoughts would make George Carlin blush and get me deleted.

    Parent

    Weasel words (none / 0) (#41)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    I do it too. We all do. But it's no defense. This discussion is about McCain's aid and, by implication, McCain. You said "So a top adviser suggests a terrorist attack would be good for his candidate." You didn't mention anybody else specifically. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that you are referring to McCain.

    Parent
    You might also ... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:48:38 PM EST
    ... check McSame's 2004 speech at George Bush's nominating convention. He was all about war, even though he acknowledged that it would hurt the American economy. Here was my favorite quote from that war-mongering speech:

    "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war."

    Of course, Barack Obama was not deluded, and he was against the Iraqi War from the start. Here is how McCain rationalized screwing our economy for Bush's folly:

    "War is an awful business. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacraficed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted. Economies are damaged.... But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly."

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/gop.mccain.transcript/index.html

    So, with malice aforethought -- towards our economy and the lives of soldiers and innocents -- McCain vigorously championed the continuation of the war he had pushed on America since 2000.  

    His aide is hoping for a major terrorist attack? Not surprised. If McCain wins, we'll have the Iran War in 2009.

    When you have to deny (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:59:57 PM EST
    that you have a recurrence of cancer, you've got a problem.

    McCain's cancer's back? (none / 0) (#2)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:14:14 PM EST


    sorry, I get it now :) (none / 0) (#3)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:16:19 PM EST


    The "clear" diagnosis made no sense (none / 0) (#4)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:21:51 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the chance that melanoma will come back are incredibly high.  I am not sure that should take him out of the running, but I do think that it makes his choice of VP VERY important.  

    Perhaps Cheney is available. (none / 0) (#5)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:22:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah. Just make me throw up (none / 0) (#13)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:41:39 PM EST
    right after dinner.  

    The only place Dick Cheney belongs is...  Well, you know.  ;-)

    Parent

    The underlying truth is that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:23:05 PM EST
    we have people in the WH who would be only too happy to wag the dog and make it happen just to ensure another Republican president.

    I've gotten to the point where I believe pretty much nothing I hear coming out of the WH, and I don't believe much that comes out of the presidential campaigns, either.

    Who to believe?  Who to trust?  Getting to be a cr@p shoot of epic proportions.

    Completely agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:32:22 PM EST
    With the 24 hour news cycle the candidates (whoever they are) can't say anything intelligent in a 30 second sound bite, but can say a lot of stupid stuff in that time.  THUS they say nothing.


    Parent
    I think there's been an on-going (none / 0) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:27:24 PM EST
    wag the dog for a good while. Benazir Bhutto, shortly before her death, made a very definite statement that Osama bin Laden was murdered. She named the murderer and her statement was made in a fashion that one would have thought this was common knowledge.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:40:56 AM EST
    Im curious to see what the predicted electoral map looks like after the october 'surprise' of osamas death.

    Parent
    I honestly think. . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:32:11 PM EST
    things like this bandage incident may really do McCain in (if he doesn't do it himself with his big mouth).

    He simply cannot afford any suggestion of infirmity.  

    Remember Bob Dole falling through the fence? (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM EST


    Parent
    So, I agree with Black (none / 0) (#10)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    It's no secret that Bush's approval ratings went sky-high after 9/11.  The very fastest road to a McCain presidency is another major terrorist attack.  

    That's pretty much all Black said.  He said it in response to the interviewer raising the question.  He didn't say he wished for it.

    Still... (none / 0) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    ...a very inappropriate and stupid thing to say.  No matter how you parse it.

    Parent
    On the other hand, an attack here at home (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:43:41 PM EST
    would likely also expose once and for all that all that we were no safer after 9/11 than we were before it.

    A case could certainly be made that the erosion of constitutional rights and protections was for naught, as was the war in Iraq, and that instead of making progress against terrorism, we have simple been running in place while spending billions of dollars.

    Maybe Charlie Black might want to re-think that...unless he is so programmed for "war-good, peace-bad" - for the bottom line, that is - that it's the only answer for everything.

    I would love to believe that was (none / 0) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:55:40 PM EST
    possible, but I just don't think it is.  It's far too easy for fear to overwhelm all other considerations in the wake (in time) of an attack here.

    Plus, with the group of leaders we have -- who would bring the kind of leadership to the table that would make that a viable argument to the public?  Not the group we have now, the group that's afraid to stand up on FISA.  Obviously there are individual exceptions -- this video shows that -- but Feingold didn't sound very optimistic about their chances for filibustering.

    Parent

    Yeah, as much as it pains me to (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:05:30 PM EST
    admit it, I suspect that the GOP would immediately suck all the oxygen out of the room and proclaim that "if only" the pesky Democrats had not worked so hard trying to protect the rights of terrorists, it could all have been avoided.  And people would not only buy that argument, they might line up to voluntarily give up whatever is left of their rights.

    And you're probably also right that no one would be listening to the Democrats' reasons why an attack was even possible.

    It's really all just so, so depressing.

    Parent

    I Loved The Pictures (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:28:29 AM EST
    Of the envelope, particularly.

    We had the same conversation in 2004 (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    and we will probably have it again at every election. Arguments can be made for either side benefitting from a terrorist attack - or a natural disaster, Martian invasion, etc.

    People are thinking about it anyway when they make up their mind about voting. I don't have a problem with it being said out loud.

    Except that the media Wurlitzer starts up and makes a big deal out of it.

    It was the media repeating ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    ... what a McCain advisor said. It wasn't just a supposedly impartial pundit. This smacks so much of Orwell's 1984 that it is scary.

    Parent
    Maybe Ahnold will make a statement for McCain (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:41:09 AM EST
    "It's not a toomah"

    also from McCainland on Monday (none / 0) (#38)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    McCain offered some ideas on energy policy, and the Sierra Club smacked him hard for offering a "gimmick" instead of the strong, comprehensive plan Obama is offering:

    http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1592

    Inside John McCain's Head (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    Matt Welch, the LA Times writer who has just finished a book about the myth of McCain the Maverick, has some quite telling and disturbing insights into the foreign policy base of thought that McCain operates from and which his presidency would attempt to further.  Any PUMA or other Dem pissed off with Obama and thinking they'll vote McCain to change the Dem party (make it more liberal by casting a more conservative vote, there's logic) should listen very closely -- hint, McCain is probably MORE of a neo-con than Bush and with, as impossible as this sounds, less of an intellect.

    McCain and Foreign Policy

    The whole series of Matt Welch interviews about his McCain book.

    Today in McCain Land | 48 comments (48 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment