It appears that the Obama campaign just released an attack ad that goes after John McCain for not being able to use email. The thing is, (a) McCain was an early Senate adopter of email, as a Google search can confirm via past media reports; but (b) His wife often has to type for him, because the lasting effects of tortures he received in North Vietnam's Hanoi Hilton have made it very difficult to impossible for him to tie his shoes, comb his hair, throw a ball.. or use a keyboard. Also easily available via past media reports. See Ed Morrissey for more.
As a low, stupid, counterproductive political trick, this one deserves a medal. What makes it even stupider is that aside from the ethical vacuum and research incompetence on display, there's a recent precedent that would have cautioned anyone with half a brain.
Up in Canada, Jean Chretien of the Liberal Party was Prime Minister from 1993-2004. If you've ever seen a picture, it looks like the guy is always speaking out the side of his mouth. That's because he is - a birth defect left him without hearing in one ear, and the effect on his face comes from Bell's Palsy. In 1993, the Conservative Party ran an attack ad that made fun of his mannerisms of speech and enunciation as undignified. Of course, it blew up on its creators like a bomb - and was especially damaging among swing voters, who drew the conclusion that someone was completely unready for prime time, and it wasn't "le petit gars from Shawinigan".
Somehow, McCain seems able to use a Blackberry. See multiple photos. You don't suppose they tell stories like this for cover purposes or to get sympathy, do you?
Say, did you know McCain was a POW?
The last time I asked someone here to provide justification for their claim that McCain can't type because of his war injuries, they provided a link to the very same Boston Globe article.
Is this the sole source upon which to base such righteous outrage? Seems rather flimsy to me.
Further, the article provides absolutely no independent evidence that he has a medical reason for not using a keyboard, except to assert it. It would seem that the author of the article might just be passing along a claim made by McCain himself or a spokesperson.
He surely does look pretty comfortable and capable of using cell phones/blackberries, however. And of course texting requires a lot more manual dexterity than typing on a keyboard.
AJL: So you're saying since McCain can and does use a Blackberry on occasion, that the Obama ad was misleading? Help us out here.
#2: Actually, no. Two-thumbing a Blackberry uses entirely different muscle and tendon groups, and the pronation of the arms needed to type on a standard keyboard is largely absent. Lumping any capability to use one's hands with another one with greatly different mechanics, under the single label of "dexterity", is... ...how do I say this? Ignorant.
So, AJL, you're saying that the Obama ad was just a lie, and not insulting/ unethical as well? Help us out here...
Heh, Joe. Great minds? Or evidence of the VRWC?!?!?
#2:
The last time was right here and you were provided two sources: the Boston Globe and Forbes magazine. So no, it isn't the sole source, as you've already been shown, but I love that you're still looking for ways to try to turn it into a chance to question McCain.
okay, that ad for Obama was stupid; almost as stupid as the "sex ed for kindergarten" ad for McShame.
Sorry, Nort, they're both kinds of "dexterity". Yes, they may use different muscle groups, but the idea is not to prove that he can type but to cast doubt on the claim.
So back to that. Can you provide an independent source for this claim other than the Globe article, or are you just here to hurl insults?
klevenStein:
Just to let you know: One-liners from first-time posters tend to get treated as drive-bys, and we frown on those. Dumb renamings of principals count as another demerit. Once you've been around a while, the rules relax quite a bit.
So please feel free to stick around and contribute substance.
Thanks.
Also #3 and #5, where do you think Obama may have arrived at the conclusion that "McCain doesn't use email"?
Think hard now....
Times up. McCain has said this himself.
So, if you believe him and say he doesn't, but he actually does, then who's lying?
I don't think this is a question requiring use of my specialized typing muscle groups since it is now common knowledge that McCain is a serial liar who will say anything to get elected.
The question is really whether you're trying to suggest that Obama is a liar because he's repeating McCain's lie?
Now we're really plumbing new depths of creative crap-spewing.
I'm not hurling insults. I am claiming that your claim that "more dexterity" is required to operate a Blackberry than to type on a conventional computer keyboard is a bankrupt -- and ignorant-- claim. I am not attacking you, I am attacking your basis of knowledge in making the claim you make. Ignorance can be cured. I did not call you stupid, nor will I. That you seem to confuse the two is regrettable.
I'm not defending McCain qua McCain, I'm saying that a bit of experience with various sorts of physical disability and anatomy / physiology / biomechanics would have led you to a more accurate claim than the one you made. And I called you on that claim. Nothing less, nothing more. Yes, I did so baldly. To whatever degree I insulted you, I am sorry.
Once again, the lack of an email backchannel makes this matter messier than it otherwise might be.
Vista: 2000 is eight years before 2008. I don't know precisely how deep you want to go down this rabbit hole, but I'm done. Consider yourself victorious if you wish.
No the lie is Joe atzman's. In a liberal society programs are desinged to help people like John McCain. You might have even noticed that many soldiers whom lose limbs are eligilbe for the program called CAP: (link)
Read the rest:
(link)
[Bare URLS reformatted for you. Again. --NM]
Vista, unless you've got some new facts to bring to this, I'll request that you let this drop...
A.L.
Robert M: Please try harder to construct URLs that don't break Movable Type. Others manage it.
Double quote character followed immediately by whatever text you want to have shown as a link field followed immediately by double quote character followed immediately by colon character followed immediately by the url.
The other possibility, Robert, is to use a straight URL of the form <a href="http://host.domain.tld/etc">text to display</a>
If I typed that all correctly, after looking at it twice (boo! no preview), you should get the complete HTML anchor tag example. It does not seem to break the formatting, and is less confusing (for me, since I know HTML, at least) than the Textile stuff.
Actually, a real example would help. The first line is what I am typing in the second line, to get it to display that way:
<a href="http://www.windsofchange.net">Winds of Change main page</a>
Winds of Change main page
(NM: if that link is going to mess up the main page, please just delete this. I figured it wouldn't be a problem, but I really don't know much about how MT handles Textile in comments on the main page, so it's possible I blew it)
I'll add that for Mr Medcalf's style, the leading a and the href only need a single space character between them, not a new line.
PS to Mr Medcalf: Good shootin', Tex! :)
Mr Medcalf:
The real problem MT has is that any long no-whitespace text hoses its layout. URLs are just one easy way to do it. But since your display text has spaces in it and your sample URL is short, you win an Internet!
Another way to screw MT up is to put a long string of alternatives in sequence separated solely by slash characters (no whitespace).
Uh oh, now the terrorists win. Bummer.
The Obama ad strikes me as stupid, not as a lie, but as in Who Really Cares. Perhaps McCain was being modest for a change when he disclaimed Internet skills—but that isn't the Morrisey Defense.
The point stands, however, that McCain's dexterity and computer skills seem to vary depending on the point of the interview. And don't even get me started on assistive technologies; I've had more than one colleague who couldn't keyboard because of what my then-toddler called crappy tunnel syndrome.
AJL: I think your assessment is the most balanced I've heard, including the Who Really Cares[?] part. :)
I assume this is the ad in question.
I've no idea whether McCain can or can't type. I do know that alternative input devices exist for disabled people and have done since at least the 1980s.
The ad claims McCain "Can't sent an email". McCain himself says :
Regardless of whether or not McCain has difficulty using a keyboard, or what the reason might be, this ad seems to be self-defeating on a number of grounds. For example : the voters who are most likely to have limited computer skills, not know how to use email themselves, and so on, are the elderly, IMO. These are also the voters who are most likely to actually show up and vote - and also most likely to resent attempts by the Obama campaign to deride McCain as a pathetically out-of-touch old fogey. OTOH, the voters who would likely be favorably impressed by this ad are very likely already in the Obama camp - at least, so it seems to me.
Curious strategy.
The reason is damage to connective tissues caused by stretching - i.e., being hung by the arms for extended periods of time, or being bound tightly in a position POWs called the suitcase. The injuries are similar to what you would get from being stretched on the rack.
I assume that people who get their information from Obama's junior fascist action alerts are the same sort of people who think that McCain was never tortured by the heroic North Vietnamese - "treated like a prince", as the leading progressive intellectual Randi Rhodes puts it. It debases the subject to discuss it with them.
John Carpenter notes, about the ad, "Curious strategy."
I think that there's a more fundamental problem for the Obama campaign: Obama is clearly not a strategic thinker, and neither is Axelrod. Axelrod's forté is in astroturfing ("as a lifelong Republican, I am here to spew Democrats' talking points") and other methods of building buzz around a campaign, as well as campaign staff organization and ground game organizing, IIRC. Obama's strength, on the other hand, is in communicating a message that sounds good and doesn't give too many details that might scare people. Neither seems to have the ability to think through a strategy. Note that when Hillary Clinton's strategy (become the only reasonable choice, win everything early) collapsed, she adjusted strategies within a couple of weeks: even though the campaign ended before she could erase the losses she suffered early, Clinton was gaining on Obama from that point onwards. In contrast, Obama's campaign seems to have gone off the rails, and their attempts to fix it have not been to go to their strengths (craft a compelling message and spread it far and wide) but to go into unthinking random attack mode, throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks). The end result is ads like this: they are making an attack on McCain that is backfiring badly, because it paints Obama as heartless and unable to use common internet technologies like Google. The Obama campaign has lost its message.
In contrast, McCain took the lead at what should have been Obama's moment of triumph, and turned all the buzz not on himself, but on his VP choice, Palin. The interesting thing about that is that the Obama campaign is still focusing more on Palin than on McCain. Meanwhile, McCain has been spreading his own message, using Palin's compelling life story as well as his own to sell his message. McCain is now weeks ahead of Obama, while Obama is still trying to orient, and in consequence keeps hitting targets that moved on quite a while ago; Obama has been unable to fix McCain in place on any particular issue, so McCain hasn't had to defend ground. This is reflected in the polls, which are increasingly moving in McCain's direction.
It's not a curious strategy we are seeing, but the lack of a strategy to replace the one McCain deftly butchered by choosing Palin.
Part of his strategic trouble comes from divided attention. Obama seems to be having trouble with his base, and so he can't craft a simple General Election message and focus on it. He has to keep running back to the base.
I don't just mean the recent polls in Minnesota and New York suggesting that those states might be in play, which requires him to spend resources and time nailing them down. I also mean that some of the normal Democratic base groups are not firmly in his camp at this point, and he'll have to devote time and resources to them as well.
The Hill noticed remarks by AFSCME president Gerald McEntee that "many workers are considering voting for McCain because of his military service and status as a hero of the Vietnam War."
Now, on the one hand, that makes perfect sense. Lots of union guys are veterans, and McCain's story will harmonize with them. They understand where he's coming from, why he wants to be President, and feel like he's someone they can trust to do what's right.
On the other hand, the AFSCME is all about public sector unions. An Obama victory with a Democratic congress would create massive new bureaucracies in health care, regulatory agencies, across the board. It's a natural for AFSCME to support him.
If he's having trouble with public sector unions, because of rank and file distrust, he's having trouble with unions across the board. And if he's having trouble with unions, he's got trouble indeed.
So he can't be focused on his national message. He's still got to work on nailing down the base. And he's got to work on fundraising, too, since he refused public money.
That's a lot of attention away from the campaign. It's no wonder you get this kind of "1982" ad: reactive is all he really can do right now. His strategy people are focused on fixing the fundamentals, and not available for the overarching message.
But there's still a month and a half until the election.
That's a good point on the base. In a sense, the complexity of the Democrats make it much harder to unite the party, and this is increasingly true over the years as identity politics gets more "refined" and as issue politics becomes more stagnant (even, dare I say it, conservative, in that the positions are not changing at all in response to events).
The netroots, of course, are fickle creatures; they are ideological puritans and enforcers, and any deviation from their line must be punished, unless it can be rationalized to them as tactical necessity. While I think that they are ultimately not very powerful, they do bring good fundraising and a good propaganda apparatus, and may help with the ground game by pumping in enthusiasm. So I suppose that they have to be placated.
But that contradicts the main way for a Democrat to win elections: run to the center, push the DLC/Blue Dog line, and hide any possible association with the more radical elements of the Party. It's a good question whether the two can be reconciled enough before the election.
Ironic, isn't it, that before the conventions, the situation seemed that Obama had locked down his base, while McCain clearly hadn't, and now the situation seems to be exactly reversed.
I don't know if Obama can recover within the next 6 weeks, but I certainly wouldn't count him out yet. However, every day he loses in getting back on message is a very real risk increase for him.
Also, I cannot figure out why he hasn't realized the fundamental weakness McCain has. If Obama engages McCain on the issues, effectively taunting him into saying what he believes, the social conservatives and small-government conservatives who signed on with the Palin choice might be shaken loose enough to throw the election to Obama, because those groups (and I'm in the latter of them) don't respond well to McCain's positions on a lot of issues.
#15
Actually, AL, that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.
Fact: The only evidence cited so far in support of the claim that McCain can't use a keyboard because of war injuries is the Boston Globe article.
Fact: The Globe article provides no independent justification for the assertion.
Fact: McCain does not seem to have any trouble using a Blackberry.
Fact: John McCain has been in the business of "burnishing" his personal history for many years now.
Fact: The veracity of anything that John McCain or his campaign claim is suspect.
(Interesting aside to #25. Machiavelli was tortured brutally in prison many years ago using a form of torture where they tie your hands behind your back and the raise and lower you off your feet to dislocate your shoulders and tear your muscles, frequently resulting in permanent nerve damage. He went on to write "The Prince" after that...I find this an ironic and interesting connection between two men of apparently similar philosophies; McCain is running a Machiavellian campaign to be sure.)
I also agree that the Obama ad is weak and pointless; but that's not the point of the post, whose central tenet is that Obama has made a POLITICAL blunder by raising the issue of McCains keyboard use.
To summarize that:
1) This assertion rests on the evidence that McCain's injuries actually do prevent him from typing on keyboards.
2) The evidence provided to justify this relies on a single unsourced newspaper article.
3) No one has yet stepped up to add further support for this claim.
Therefore, for the time being, I do not think that the claim can be viewed as credible.
Thus, it
You keep saying "fact." I do not think that word means what you think it means. You also keep claiming that the only evidence that you've seen — well, been given, because you are clearly not looking for yourself, — is the Boston Globe article, despite the fact that in this thread you were also given a link to the Forbes article, also from 2000. There's also a Salon article, but I've done enough for you.
You see, I sincerely doubt your sincerity. I would almost give you credit for doubting the Boston Globe on its word alone, except that you clearly accept far less well-sourced claims about McCain when those claims do not work to your advantage. Moreover, you are moving the goal posts when you are countered (now, per your last post, McCain must show — strike that: because you don't trust McCain to tell you the color of the sky, someone else must show, without reference to McCain's words, that McCain is physically incapable of any keyboard use), and you are relying on strawmen (no one was arguing about Blackberry use, which is a different physical skill) and perpetuating outright falsehoods (that no one has provided you with evidence other than the Boston Globe story).
Everyone here is willing to have a debate, Vista, but all that you are adding to it is time and pixels, and a certain level of rising gorge.
Quick edit; that was supposed to say "when those claims work to your advantage."
I'm going to jump on late and say that the ad is a little different than I would have done it. I would have attacked his inexperience with computers in general, as our goverment must become more tech savvy in order to understand how the economy is changing.
Of course McCain doesn't favor net neutrality
John McCain: In general, I think we need to move to a different model for thinking about the FCC. I think it should focus on policing clearly anti-competitive behavior and consumer predators. But, frankly, until some foul has been committed, I don’t think it should be interfering in the market, and probably shouldn’t be trying to micromanage American business and innovation. This is a very tough issue, because if you look at the extremes of it, then, obviously it has significant consequences – you can’t restrain the market, you can’t say that people can’t make a living or a profit off of the Internet.
So that's actually a fairer understanding of the internet than I've seen him give thus far. The problem is that abuses are occurring as we speak: Comcast has been accused of blocking torrent downloads and there's no one out there policing these problems. Yes, I agree that these downloads are usually illegal behavior, however in the near future this sort of large file swapping is going to become more and more common, as home owners start sending larger and larger files through the web (webcams, home video, entire programs, work from home programs etc).
Should industry get to cutoff any download that they feel is 'too large'? Or if you pay for that bandwidth, do you have the right to use it? And who's policing companies that try to cutoff access when large (but legal) or political material is used? It's a slippery slope (in all directions).
Finally, here's a breakdown of McCain's voting record on the telecom industry. It's from Salon (so some grain of salt here), but I can't find another article that's comparable yet... post if you find one.
Jeff, Vista does seem to have overlooked the second sourcing information on McCain's claim, but honestly it is no better than the Globe article in that it is a reporter's assertion based on a profile of McCain. I have not seen the Salon article but if it is of a similar nature I agree that it is not very strong. Where is the independent evidence? I too find the claim highly suspicious.
A.L.: Vista, unless you've got some new facts to bring to this, I'll request that you let this drop...
And people say A.L. is not pulling for Obama. If Obama loses this race it will be though the tireless efforts of people like Vista.
I'll add the 2000 Slate article to those supporting McCain's extensive use of the internet hampered by limited ability to use a keyboard. Slate
Vista, I think you're misunderstanding what is meant by 'fact'. In this context, it'd be direct evidence or a link to direct evidence for the claim you're making about McCain's conditions.
Arguments are not, shockingly, facts.
A.L.
NM and Jeff Medcalf
Thanks for the help. NM unless Medcalfs example is incorrect I'll go longhand.
As to this post.
Two things are going on. One, McCain's inability to use the internet goes to the idea he is not intellectually curious. He has not learned to use it despite the fact any physical infirmities can be over come. Which is why all the defenses about him being a POW are just distractions and lies in regard to his physical ability to perform.
From a political point of view it is stupid because in a political campaign the goal is to move the undecided voters and peel away curious voters to your side. As someone here has pointed out it reinforces the "elistist" meme for older peple whom are "LIKELY" not to be users of the internet, especially if that is the group you are trying to peel away.
Forcing McCain to tell the truth is a better bet. It really goes to his lack of Honor. For example someone has the meme McCain can't type because he wasn't tortured and gives a name of someone. The reality is McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese but he will not admit what is going on at Gitmo is the same thing.
Vista
Machiavellian now way no how no Palin. Machiavelli wrote the book for the Prince. The purpose of it was how to consolidate his power for a larger honorable political goal the unification of the Italian states. There is nothing honorable about McCain positions. Even if you assume he is Machiavellian in trying to get elected and reversed so many long held social positions to do so he ain't going to return to the McCain of the 2000 primary campaign. With his pick of Palin to shoreup the base his intentions are clear; he is not Cesare Borgia but
Savonarola
The ineptitude of the Obama ad aside – does he really need allies like this?
(Pre-emptive, “Bush Doctrine”-type apologies in case this hyper-link comes out wrong ...)
Personal Treason Soils John McCain
“ ... the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised.”
This seems to me to be yet another example of preaching to the Choir.
[Mr Carpenter: Re: your link: almost! :) There was a space between the colon character and the URL. Fixed. --NM]
Is this now the standard of evidence, G_Tarhune and Vista, that you wish to adhere to? Merely because 3 newspapers have made a claim and it has not been invalidated by any source presented, we must discard that evidence? Because on that standard, there is very little that can be held to have been demonstrated. But I'd be willing to play by those rules if you are.
This "attack" is dumb- Does Obama really think anyone actually gives a damn if the potential President of the US can send an E-Mail? How about type one hundred words a minute? Change the paper in the Fax machine? Not his job. It may astound some, but until recent times, NO President was ever able to send an E mail. Not even FDR! Wow!
I find the bickering over how high McCain can raise his arms, whether or not he can use a phone, etc, totally disgusting- All the damn naysayers- go and read a bit about what happened to the POW's in the Hanoi Hilton--attacking McCain on this issue just makes the Democrat campaign look ignorant and cheap. And the arguing of the details in order to justify it- just sickening.
The thing I do not understand- are the Dems actively TRYING to lose? It seems that every time I turn around, there is another action that alienates the broad swath of voters in the middle, you know, the undecided group that decides elections. All the committed leftists, those who would never under any circumstance vote for a Republican or Independent- guess what" You do not count.You are already "in the bag". Yet for some undefined reason, Obama keeps pushing away the middle. Biden? BIDEN? Ya gotta be KIDDING me. ANY chance I would have ever voted for Obama was tossed on that selection- and I am the type of guy he NEEDS to win. He picks as VP the guy who was #1 on every damn "gun control" scheme cooked up in congress? The guy who fostered so much of the "anti drug" crap? Two big city ultra liberals- gee- really appeals to a wide ranging bunch of folks.
The photographic evidence cited in my first comment makes clear that McCain is not as physically disabled around electronic equipment as some are extrapolating from earlier puff piece articles. Reportage on the subject is (same link) inconsistent, to put it politely.
#39:
The thing I do not understand- are the Dems actively TRYING to lose? It seems that every time I turn around, there is another action that alienates the broad swath of voters in the middle, you know, the undecided group that decides elections. All the committed leftists, those who would never under any circumstance vote for a Republican or Independent- guess what" You do not count.
They do if they're in McCain's camp. See post #27. If he's having trouble with public sector unions, he doesn't have his base down yet -- and that means he has to keep running to them, not to the "broad swath of voters in the middle."
Do Obama supporters really want to debate about exactly how disabled McCain's POW experience has left him? Does this strike you as a promising line of attack to influence independent voters?
Just like in 2004, Democratic supporters general nuttiness is going to cause me to vote Republican. 2004 was the first time I ever did, it's looking like 2008 is going to be the second time...
Jeff, I did not say "discard" the evidence. I am only seconding the concern that it is flimsy. And the same story appearing three times in three different papers doesn't make 3 independent pieces of evidence but just the same one (a claim by McCain recorded and printed by the media) repeated thrice (at least two were from around the same time in 2000).
#39, #46
I think you're trying to re-frame the issue. The ad from Obama is not about whether McCain is too disabled to use a keyboard or not. It is about whether he is out of touch with modern issues. The narration from the ad say "McCain admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer...can't send an email...". And it is true, McCain himself has said he is a "computer illiterate".
Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin and the pro-Republican chorus are the ones trying to make this about his war injuries, clearly.
This is all just another version of the "A noun...a verb...and POW" shtik. The widespread recognition that this is McCain's sole contribution to the debate is certainly not a plus for his campaign. So I think you both have it backwards on who will come out from this latest Republican manufactured faux issue looking the worse for it.
Are you people out of your minds? The ability to use a cell phone or a blackberry is not indicative of the ability to type long form.
I have a family member who uses a wheelchair. She can walk with the aid of crutches, but its difficult so she uses the chair now. Thank god she's not running for president.
"I've seen a lot of spinals, Dude... and this guys walks. I've never been so sure of anything in my life."
#47, I agree that is what the ad says, but the facts (as I understand them) is that McCain is relatively tech savvy, just that he doesn't personally use a computer. He uses a blackberry, he pays attention to blogs, but he has his wife send his emails due to physical difficulties using a keyboard.
There's a lot of evidence to put the basic claim about his being generally out of touch technology-wise to rest. But that's campaign season for you - I don't expect either candidate's ads to give their opponent the benefit of the doubt.
But I notice that Obama supporters here aren't generally pressing the out-of-touch claim, they're claiming that he's lying about his ability to use a keyboard. My guess is that if McCain were, say, trapped in a Vietnamese prison camp, he'd be able to send an email asking for a rescue. In his daily life though, it's just easier to let someone else do it. By virtue of not doing it daily, he's not readily fluent with it and he deprecates himself.
But this is all irrelevant. My point is this is what we're reduced to debating and it's not a very fruitful line of attack in the first place. It naturally leads to "How impaired is he?" Obama picked this ground to attack on, McCain supporters are using the logical line of defense against the attack. This is an argument the Obama campaign can't win - even if it wins it.
Anybody paying attention know McCain was a POW, but you over-estimate how many people are paying attention. At least 5 of my wife's friends had no idea McCain had been a POW before hearing his convention speech. 3 of them decided to support McCain after learning of his life story. You and I may be sick of hearing about it but it never hurts McCain to have an opportunity to retell it.
But if you think this issue is really going to rally independents over to your side, well, press on. The strategy has been working well so far...
Indeed. I'm no Karl Rove but I have to ask myself how pictures of McCain using a Blackberry prove he is a tech-Luddite. You fellas might wanna take a couple plays off and think that one over.
And in case anyone thought the Obama campaign was done silencing critics, think again. And its WGN radio once again:
"It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat."
"Monday night's target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time."
link
So much for the argument that it was third stringers not invited to the convention pulling this crap.
Gosh, SG, when I said conservatives aimed for low-information voters like your wife's friends, I got called an elitist.
Their reasoning is hard to understand. There must be dozens of American POWs whose enhanced interrogations were as brutal as McCain's, more or less. Why would these be the most qualified citizens for the Presidency escapes me.
Look, if all we have to go on at this point is McCain's word that he can't type because of his injuries (as opposed to not having learned how to use a keyboard or a lack of interest in doing so), then the Republicans are in no better position to invite further scrutiny over this ad or his claimed physical impairments because it leads directly toward questions about his credibility. And I think we can all appreciate what the common wisdom says on that subject right now...
I also don't think too many people are going to choose to vote for McCain because they feel pity for the man, your wife's friends notwithstanding. You'd have to be nearly 100% tuned out not to know that he was a POW...he and his campaign mention this nearly every time they open their mouths, and the media has also given it much prominence in their coverage. The problem with your repetition argument is that, while it is true that this can help educate people about McCain's background, it just as often comes up under circumstances where McCain wants to deflect criticism of a policy or position that has nothing at all to do with his POW status, and in this case the experience is cheapened. It also makes McCain look like he's trying to avoid confronting issues.
#53
There's a compelling case to be made that voters are rationally ignorant. One person's vote just doesn't count for all that much, so time spent obsessing over politics is time wasted.
So, yes, there are a lot of low-information voters and both sides seek to appeal to them. (unless it's your claim that "Change We Need" is some sophisticated, nuanced argument - is he running for president or Brawndo?)
And you seem to be making the (common) mistake that candidates compete against the platonic ideal. They don't; they compete against the other guy. The question is not "Does McCain's POW experience make him the most qualified citizen to be President", it's "Does McCain's POW experience make him a better candidate for President than Barack Obama?" And quite arguably, it does. It demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice for his country that Obama simply has not demonstrated. It's not the be-all/end-all, but it's hardly nothing.
I think Obama should double down and issue an ad that points out McCain's Email Lies!.
This is so obviously a winning line of attack for him!
SG: But I notice that Obama supporters here aren't generally pressing the out-of-touch claim, they're claiming that he's lying about his ability to use a keyboard.
Which of course is in keeping with the "let's all work together to paint McCain as dishonorable" meme.
Now, that certainly doesn't look like the original point of the ad, but that's what defense of it has morphed into.
I still think attacking McCain on the grounds of honors is sort of like marching infantry into Russia in the middle of winter, but hey, they aren't my foot soldiers.
But looking back at the ad and assume the closing line ("after one president [PHOTO, PAN FROM PRESIDENT BUSH TO JOHN MCCAIN] who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same") really is the take-away we're supposed to get, then leading off with the email thing will only click with those whom would answer "no" the the question "can you respect a 70-year old man who can't use email". My guess is that most people wouldn't think anything of it (whether the actual charge is true or not), most of us knowing and respecting at least a few older folk who don't bother much with computers. A second guess; those most likely to be outraged that the geezer can't google are precisely the snark-artists who give young Democratic activists such a bad public image.
So short form: the original ad will appeal most to a demographic locked up for Obama. It will irritate most those most likely to actually vote.
Coming back to the "dishonor" meme, I humbly suggest that Obama's camp explore these other lines of attack:
McCain is too white to be President.
McCain is too charitable to be President (oops, beat me to it.)
McCain is too disabled to be President -- oh, wait...
McCain is too feisty to be President.
I'm sure others can come up with even more effectively self-destructive campaigns.
#45- Grim, What I meant was that the committed hard core democrats, the Never Ever vote otherwise crowd, are in his camp and do not need to be worried about. Those union guys? The ones who normally vote Dem cause it's the "union" thing to do? The ones with jobs outside academia? They are identifying pretty strongly with the comment about "bitter and clinging to guns and religion". My interpretation is they see the party drifting further away from them. And the choice of Biden- Obama could swear on sixty Bibles he won't "take your guns away" and the selection of Biden would negate it. Most all my "educated"(mostly teachers) liberal friends who own guns will vote for Obama- They are more invested in the socialist ideology and think somehow they will not be affected. The working stiffs have a bit more common sense.
Sorry for the recent comment-number upheavals. Doing some minor pruning, I thought leaving blank comments in to preserve numbering might make posters look bad. Sigh. "Ain't nothin' simple."
If Rudy Giuliani were the computer-illiterate nominee, the Republicans here would be explaining that his keyboard broke permanently on 9/11.
Good lord. A more skeptical man would wonder if being kept in a tiger cage for several years would have long term affects on your joints in your old age. Bah, let the old goldbricker have it with both barrels. Thats smart politics.
Funny how his joints are now so bad (but weren't when he returned to Navy service), but his judgment and mental acuity, those were positively enhanced. As I said, I think the whole line of attack is silly, but maybe not, it exposes McCain support as some sort of cult.
So we're told that multiple newspaper reports are insufficient evidence (Vista, G_Tarhune) of McCain's injuries making it difficult for him to use a keyboard, but that a single weak argument by Jonathan Alter of Huffington Post (Andrew J. Lazarus) based entirely on speculation and lack of a denial by the campaign (and without evidence that the campaign was asked) is sufficient to prove the alternative? Why do I not feel convinced?
"Funny how his joints are now so bad (but weren't when he returned to Navy service), but his judgment and mental acuity, those were positively enhanced."
Yeah, its almost like the body breaks down as we age, but we get wiser. Some of us anyway. Boy, that concept is just crazy talk.
I think you are confused, AJL. Here is the situation as I see it:
1. A whole lotta people are throwing all kinds of smears at McCain and Palin, along with a few justified attacks.
2. Some of us are pretty tired of the smear-flinging.
3. We call people on it.
4. And are called cultists for it.
Again, not really a convincing argument to be made there. I think that most of the people defending McCain here, certainly including myself and certainly including AL (who has endorsed Obama) have issues with McCain. But they're issues, not petty mudslinging about whether or not McCain is exaggerating his war injuries! Moreover, most of us have also attacked the idiots who were earlier in the year accusing Obama of being Muslim, harping on his middle name, or whatever. So in the interest of keeping this a civil forum, may I respectfully suggest that you aim narrower broadsides, or at least don't pretend to be so f'ing superior by flinging crap, then complaining that the rest of us smell.
AJL
Not hard for me to understand.
The points are courage, character, and loyalty.
McCain vividly reminded us (well, he informed some of us) that, for more than five years, he LIVED all three of these.
Obama has yet to demonstrate even one, for more than a moment.
So, Mariner, are you seeking out those other POWs to run for office? Do they automatically qualify when they do?
Benedict Arnold, Phillipe Petain, and Hermann Goering were all, at one point in their careers, bona fide war heroes. It's possible to lose honor and character. Comments like yours are hero-worship. That's not, actually, a very good way to pick political leaders, and from a campaign that ridicules its opponent as the Obamamessiah, hypocritical.
On the other hand, Obama knows how to give a speech.
Now there is the kind of skill we point to when you just know someone is ready to be president. After all Hitler, Goebbels, Mussolini, and Castro all knew how to give a speech.
Folks, I think we're in Godwin territory now. Is it time to tie a knot in this thread?
Benedict Arnold, Phillipe Petain, and Hermann Goering were all, at one point in their careers, bona fide war heroes.
And so was George Washington. He made a pretty good president, I think.
It's not the only basis on which to pick a leader, but if one candidate has demonstrated courageous, character and honor, and the other hasn't, it's a reasonable tie breaker. It's also a reasonable metric to use in the absence of other information (i.e., low-information voters).
All of which I expect you know, which is why you are so hell-bent on trying to tear his reputation down.
But lets discuss lying, since that's clearly what you want to make the election about: Was Obama lying when he promised to accept public financing and then turned it down? Was he lying when he promised to fillibuster the FISA reform bill and then voted for it? Was he lying when he said the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy and then said he wouldn't if the economy was in a recession? Was he lying when he said he wanted to pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and then asked Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari to delay the US withdrawl?
Or should we be discussing whether, despite independent news reports to the contrary, McCain might really be able to type.
Frankly, if we're going to decide the election based on who's lying more, and about more serious things, McCain will win in a landslide. Are you sure this is the ground you want to be fighting on?
Obama's current attacks on McCain about the state of the economy seem like much more fertile ground to me. But as I've said before, if you think this is an issue where you can make headway, more power to you.
BTW, the last one on my list (independently conducting foreign policy) is the only one that really bothers me. The rest are don't cares, IMO. I'm really hoping that one turns out to be untrue/overspun.
To handle, quickly, four alleged lies of Obama.
By the local criteria, it seems necessary that the statement be materially false and the speaker knows that it is false.
I dismiss the change on public financing, because changing your mind is not lying. I don't think there is any evidence that Obama was lying when he first said he would accept public financing. (Say, didn't McCain get a loan based on anticipated public primary financing and then turn the financing down? Oh, but McCain's acts must always be filtered through the knowledge he is permanently honorable.)
Saying that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake at the time they were made does not entail anything about what Obama must do, to avoid lying, in the significantly different economic situation that he inherits. This charge strikes me as completely specious. One of the mistakes of Bush economic policy is that tax cuts at the wrong time left the government unable to create economic stimulus at the right time—so the task was turned over to the housing market cum bubble. We see how that worked out.
The FISA bill that Obama voted for differed somewhat from the bill he said he would filibuster. Do I think he made the right choice? No. But it doesn't rise to the level of a lie.
The claim about troop withdrawals from Iraq comes, AFAIK, solely from Amir Taheri, a neocon clown who was last seen in public accomplishing the near-impossible feat of slandering the Iranian government—with the bogus accusation they were imposing Nazi-like yellow clothing on Iranian Jews. That's not a source. He is a known fabricator.
In the previous thread you compared McCain to Petain, Benedict Arnold, and Charles Lindbergh.
Apparently Lindbergh was insufficiently hateful for you, so you've upgraded that to Hermann Goering.
Since we're discussing honesty, I'm looking forward to seeing your protestations of innocence. Not.
So, in other words, the whole "lie" thing can be rather nuanced, and just because words and actions don't always cohere is not sufficient grounds to start slinging accusations of dishonesty and dishonor.
I'm glad we agree. I don't think these are "lies" either. Try to keep that in mind next time you're ready to call someone a liar.
And as I wrote earlier, I hope the troop withdrawal thing turns out to be false. I've only heard it from the same source as you, but he did name his source. And the story seems to be largely confirmed by Obama's denial.
It does appear that a presidential candidate is off running his own foreign policy, but instead we're going to talk about teleprompters and keyboarding ability.
Glen: It seems to be the (unwarranted) opinion of a number of McCain supporters that honorable once means honorable forever. If you want to claim that, you have to explain away Petain, Arnold, Goering, and Lindbergh. I swapped Goering in for Lindbergh because Lindbergh was not, AFAIK, a war hero. If you weren't so busy with gotcha, you might have read what I wrote accurately.
SG: I don't see any confirmation in Obama's denial. What I see is the conflation between near-term troop withdrawal of combat brigades and conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement. Obama's timetables for both of these events—one to start very soon, one to require negotiation and Congressional approval, have been public knowledge long ago (see Obama's own web site).
Congress doesnt negotiate treaties, it approves them. The fact that Obama is interfereing in the presidents negotiations is outrageous.
The Bush Administration intended to sign an agreement (i.e., not a treaty) for permanent bases without any Congressional approval whatever. How that squares with the Constitution isn't clear, but it is on all fours with neocon fantasies of force projection and imperial control.
#58
Jeff, you're not following the arguments on this thread closely enough, apparently.
G_T raised the relevant point about the weakness in your assertion of "multiple newspaper reports" in #33 and paragraph one of #43.
The first three facts I listed in #29 seem accurate, in that case.
AJL in #55 points to conflicting evidence that McCain has used a keyboard, an old-fashioned one in fact that requires a hell of a lot more finger dexterity than a modern one.
This assertion should be easy to verify independently, unlike that from McCain.
It's telling that you're not calling for this but rather are content to argue the issue on purely tactical points.
If you'd really like to win this debate I would suggest you get to work on answering those questions.
Did McCain use a typewriter after he returned from Viet Nam?
Trying to prove that the Bush National Guard memo wasn't really made in MS Word, in spite of the exact match? Trying to prove that McCain lied to three newspapers eight years ago in order to provide himself with a defense against this week's Obama ad? Whatever your needs require, a military-issue IBM Selectric is the tool for you.
I'm not calling for the things you seem to think I should be because I think that it's a pointless distraction. Obama's ad was bad politics and you want to defend it anyway. Fine; do so. I have no obligation to help you or to do your research for you. I'll let Grim's comment stand in for any snark I would have put here.
"How that squares with the Constitution isn't clear"
So what? Bush can sign any agreement he wants. The next administration can void it without comment. What we dont do, particularly as a member of Conrgess, is conduct a shadow government to undermine the current lawfully elected president. Somebody is taking their seal too seriously.
I don't see any confirmation in Obama's denial.
The primary question as I see it is, Did Obama meet with Iraqi government officials and urge them to take a position contrary to the position of the President of the United States. Obama's "denial" does seem to confirm that.
I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, the idea of a presidential candidate attempting to subvert the nation's foreign policy ought to horrify you.
A second question is what was Obama's motivation in attempting to subvert the President's foreign policy. If you accept the report and the (non-)denial, it appears he was advising the Iraqi's to take a position counter to Obama's public position (withdraw troops as soon as possible). Again the report may be wrong, but if it is true, then the most reasonable interpretation is that he wanted troops to remain in harms way longer because a withdrawal would harm him politically.
Let me repeat that - the most reasonable interpretation is that he wanted troops to remain in harms way longer because a withdrawal would harm him politically.
Can Obama supporters stop worrying about McCain's score on his typing test long enough to provide an alternative explanation for Obama's apparent behavior that doesn't make him worse than Bush is claimed to be.
By my reasoning, I don't see how anyone can support Obama for President (Note: this doesn't mean you would support McCain). But obviously you do support Obama, so where's the flaw in my reasoning?
SG
Obama is not negotiating a treaty. The force agreement is negotiated by the President. The leadership of a sovereign government is free to ask any question he wants. to speak to a potential leader of another country as Obama did is not illegal nor should it alarm anyone. As you point out this type of agreement can changed by the next president.
Do some checking. On factcheck.org they cite that while using a keyboard "is uncomfortable" for McCain, he can and does use it. The guy threw out the first pitch at a world series game in 2001, but he can't type? C'mon...
Obama is not negotiating a treaty.
No, he's actively interfering with the President's attempt to negotiate a treaty because he worries that a successful negotiation will hurt his campaign.
[What] Obama did is not illegal
How is this not a violation of the Logan Act?
Unless the theory is that a SFA is an injury to Obama's campaign, so he has a right to seek redress.
But leaving aside the legality (the Logan Act, while still law, is de facto invalid. No one has ever been prosectuted under it), whatever happened to the notion that politics stopped at the water's edge?
"to speak to a potential leader of another country as Obama did is not illegal nor should it alarm anyone."
He can speak all he wants. What he appeared to have done is subvert. Its probably technically illegal and certainly far out of what was traditionally considered bounds. The foreign policy apparatus of this country needs to speak with one voice. We cant function with different political ideologies (i'll leave aside the personal ambition) whispering different things into different ears.
Think long and hard about this. Do you really want John McCain urging his private foreign policy to the Iraqi leadership under President Obama?
"Do some checking. On factcheck.org they cite that while using a keyboard "is uncomfortable" for McCain, he can and does use it."
You could at least favor us with a link when citing the hyper-partisan web page sponsered by the foundation that funded the Challenge Obama served on with Bill Ayers.
And the silliness really needs to stop. Being disabled doesnt just mean the complete physical impossibility of doing something. Its hard for McCain to type, thats documented from before this election. So he uses a blackberry. Its disgraceful to be picking at this.
I just cant get the picture of Walter from The Big Lebowski tossing the old man out of the wheelchair. This guys walks.
I suggest you transmit this message to McCain and his supporters.
Burn. When the conversation turns from Palin's secret love child and McCains faking disabilities, we can talk about that.
Factcheck.org is not a partisan site. It only became one, to the McCain fans, when it stopped going along with McCain bullcrap. Indeed, I'd say they've been harder on Obama than necessary.
Of course, drinking in the Kool Aid leads people to think RedState is the arbiter of truth.
Uh-huh. The Ananburg Political Fact Check. Hey, i'm sure all the bloggers are professors at UIC, professional people. How biased could they be?
You could look at the bios of the FactCheck.org researchers for yourself. The top people are mostly mainstream journalists. I suppose since they are educated, they must be biased for Obama; one of these days what's left of the intellectual conservative movement will have to reckon with depending on the votes of Creationists and people who think Saddam had a nuclear arsenal ready to go.
"The top people are mostly mainstream journalists."
Oh, well in that case...
"one of these days what's left of the intellectual conservative movement will have to reckon with depending on the votes of Creationists and people who think Saddam had a nuclear arsenal ready to go."
Your disdain for middle America never ceases to amaze me. I give you credit for being open about it, at least.
Some more reporting about the Obama/Iraq meeting has come out, and it sounds much, much better.
I'm genuinely pleased to hear this.
Amir Taheri is doubling down on his Obama/Iraq story.
I will continue to hope that the unnamed Bush administration official above is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.