I was actually rather impressed by the speech. As some of you know, I’ve been complaining about the Rovian tactic of running on smears and fears, character assassination and polarization rather than policies. Well, even though I think he’s fundamentally wrong on so many issues (Iraq, health care, drilling, and did he promise to abolish unemployment insurance?), John McCain stood up tonight and made his case based on policy. True, the man is a lousy speaker with some obvious teleprompter mishaps (Sarah Palin has worked with her hands and nose…), but still, he made his case, and he deserves credit for that. He also deserves credit for being classy and gracious when referring to Obama, and challenging him again only on policy issues. He even toned down the bellicosity and knee-jerk reactions and seemed instead to become a little more sober in his judgment.
The tone was so starkly different from the ridiculous stereotype called Mitt Romney or the craziness of Rudy Giuliani who reminded me a little of Heath Ledger’s Joker… It was also so starkly different from Palin’s speech, full of nasty smears, exuding pointless pettiness. McCain seemed to rise above them all. But isn’t that a problem when your base is closer to Palin, Romney, and Giuliani? Certainly, McCain’s references to Republican corruption, corporate welfare, and the need to acknowledge good ideas from all corners fell completely flat. But it was good to see a remnant of the old McCain. I can’t imagine that is the speech Karl Rove would have recommended. Is he trying to have it both ways, I wonder: appeal to moderates while leaving the newest Rove creation, Sarah Palin, to take care of the base? Or will it be, as Topol said in Fiddler on the Roof, that if the party bends that far, it will break?
Besides the fact that I don’t think any Christian should ever say “Country First,” I was impressed with McCain tonight too. He reminded me of the McCain I admired 8 years ago.
He didn’t say anything about abolishing unemployment insurance/benefits. Not at all. He said he wanted to reform the unemployment lapse problem by providing training/education for the new markets, because our employment strategies are based on a 1950′s economics. Unlike in Obama’s dreamland rhetoric, McCain realizes that we just can’t get all our automobile and textile jobs back…not gonna happen.
I was surprised the the messianic setup. I remember something like “the stars being aligned” and ‘not his time to die” being said in the introductory video.
“We are fortunate to be able to vote for this man”…”He will renew America.”
I did find it interesting what he said about his association with America, thinking being a fellow American is an association which means more to him than any other. Can a Christian really say that? I would think a Christian would answer no, the greatest association they have is with Christ (and the Church). But America first really means America first, even above one’s faith :(
I’m glad you liked the speech. Parts of it, I felt were quite touching, actually. Such as when he said the Republican party had failed and needed to get back to basics, or when he was talking about war’s personal cost on his own life. I’ve also noticed sometimes on this blog that comments get blocked, and I though that was pretty funny so I wrote a song about it.
I enjoyed the substance of the speech, though the delivery was weak. McCain said a lot of very good things, and he has backed up a lot of it in his previous actions in Congress. I think that if he’s president, he will make much of the GOP nervous…but that may be a good thing.
I enjoyed the substance of the speech, though the delivery was weak. McCain said a lot of very good things, and he has backed up a lot of it in his previous actions in Congress. I think that if he’s president, he will make much of the GOP nervous…but that may be a good thing.
That about sums it up. I like others, like the fact that he’s not a smooth theatrical speaker e.g. Obama. It gives him an authenticity Obama can’t match. However, McCain lacks that smooth delivery so I guess it’a a wash.
Speaking of which, I really thought Obama did well in his 1 on 1 with O’Reilly. I’m curious to see the rest of the segments.
I really think a lot of the “opposition” to McCain around here comes from people who aren’t that familiar with his record. From a New Republic article:
This isn’t a comment on his faith itself, but McCain strikes me in terms of political thought as being someone like Cicero (sans rhetorical ability obviously). Committed to the Republic, seeing civic responsibility as the great issue. There are many virtues to such an approach.
The downsides are the lack of influence from just war theory on his national security outlook, and the lack of influence of principles of Catholic Social Thought on his domestic policy positions. It doesn’t mean that his policies will necessarily be wrong (although some are very wrong in my opinion) but it does mean that certain things are likely to be neglected (like proper value for the poor in determining economic policies).
I’d be happier if McCain the maverick were willing to challenge the Grover Norquist wing of the Republican party on economic policies, which I think both a CST and a Ciceronian position would warrent. My guess is that as president he’d have to, given the likely shape of Congress. I just wish he would think and talk now about real policies that could be accomplished in a bipartisan way.
And for those of you who like to smear McCain as a warmonger, these lines from his speech seem aimed at you:
A lot to say about McCain’s speech… I’m of two minds on it. I’m tempted to 2nd Policraticus’s thoughts.
But for now I have a question for the other Zak. When you write things like, “proper value for the poor in determining economic policies” I think you are assuming that you know what economic policies best help the poor. Do you indeed know which policies are best? I’d like to hear about them.
Mark & Minion, I finally know where you get your talking points – Iran ! :-P
http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10879
[...] Vox Nova - 12:27 AM – Stop the Presses: I’m Going to Say Something Nice About John McCain! I was actually rather impressed by the speech. As some of you know, I’ve been complaining about the Rovian tactic of running on smears and fears, character assassination and polarization rather than policies. Well, even though I think he’s fundamentally wrong on so many issues (Iraq, health care, drilling, and did he promise to abolish unemployment… Black Christian News – Sep 3, 2008 – Biden’s Faith Strong, but Stance on Abortion Draws Fire “The press knows Biden’s faith is going to be an issue,” said Charles Dunn, dean of the Regent University school of government in Virginia. [...]
I think he said, “Sarah Palin worked with her hands and knows…and she knows…”
But it did sound like “hands and nose” — I laughed outright at that one!
I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination.
I think there is a profound love of war. I haven’t read the book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, but it seems to me that’s self-evidently true. Many great struggles are described as wars — the war on poverty, the war on cancer, the war on drugs, the war on terror. A war hero is not celebrated as someone who did a terrible job because someone had to do it. Our military is not viewed as a necessary evil.
Almost every evening on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, certainly the least partisan news show on television, there is the “Honor Roll” of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not a list of the dead . . . it’s an “honor roll.” It remains an honor roll even when the majority of Americans feel that getting into the war was a mistake. We honor those who fight and die in a war we believe was ill-considered. It’s because we love war. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
McCain used the word “fight” 43 times in the speech, and it got tremendous applause. Fighting is good. War is romanticized. Pacifists are kooks at best.
It would be disingenuous of me to claim that I hate war, and I don’t believe John McCain hates war.
MM, have you considered that phrases like, “Rovian tactic of running on smears and fears, character assassination and polarization rather than policies” are inacurate… and are infact themselves smears, fears, character assassinations, and polarization rather than substantial engagement of what is put forth?
Yes, general statements like “I hate war” and “I support a culture of life” are meaningless unless backed up by acts and policies.
MM,
Sort of like saying, “I believe what the Church believes, am pro-life, and want to see an end to genocide” and then voting for a pro-infanticide candidate who wants to put in place policies so as to ensure abortion will become permanent in America and no restrictions can ever be put in place?
SB, we all know McCain’s record during Bush’s first term. We also know that he came far closer than he will ever admit to switching parties. But since then, he has backtracked on the very policies that made him noble: taxes, immigration, even government reform.
Listen to what he said last night. To his credit, he focused on policy. But he presented a laundry list of policies that could have come from one of Bush’s state of the union speech. His tax cuts are focused exclusively on the wealthy. His health care plan would have the effect of forcing people onto the private individual market with worse coverage and no protection for discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. And drilling as the answer to the energy crisis??
Besides the fact that I don’t think any Christian should ever say “Country First,” I was impressed with McCain tonight too. He reminded me of the McCain I admired 8 years ago.
Couldn’t agree more!
Policratus,
Will you vote for McCain?
McCain was noble in tone in his own speech. I just wish that as the executive in charge of his whole convention, he would/could have prevented the fear-and- hate -fest that was largely otherwise. Rudy and Lindsey, for example, should have been sedated. I surmise that he was told that, in order to shore up the Republican base, which was still necessary for him, it had to be so.
He said “I hate war”? Really? Wow, that totally changes my opinion of him.
Yes, general statements like … “I support a culture of life” are meaningless unless backed up by acts and policies.
So work with me here. By this math, it would appear that saying “I support a culture of life” while laboring to elect a guy whose number one priority is to sign FOCA is not merely “meaningless”, but actually false, right? I mean, if you make an empty promise and don’t back it up with policy, that’s meaningless. But if you make an empty promise and then support the polar opposite of what you promise, that’s generally called a lie, isn’t it?
McCain was cute last night. I wanted to give him a hug. I enjoyed his speech. I really felt bad for him at first because they had that green screen behind him again!! But it turned out that the images were changing so, thank goodness!
I don’t think it as a green screen. It as the grass on the house on the screen. Were they insane, showing what looked like one of McCain’s mansions? Here’s a good guess as to what happened:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php
However, McCain lacks that smooth delivery so I guess it’a a wash.
I don’t know if it is a matter of taste, but I thought the delivery was good. It touched me MUCH MORE than Palin’s rant. I was willing to listen to McCain. I couldn’t wait for Palin to sit down.
Speaking of which, I really thought Obama did well in his 1 on 1 with O’Reilly. I’m curious to see the rest of the segments.
I only saw a little bit this morning…hahaha… they were both visibly uncomfortable. I loved it when Obama said “no no no no no” when O’Reilly interrupted him hehe
MM,
Awwwww nooooo… We thought the grass was from the White House!!! The house is a middle school??? They messed up the picture!! No :(
Zach,
First, I would say that the perferential option for the poor is in part a process whereby the first option of considering a policy should be its impact on the poor. That manifestly has not been a consideration in Republican tax policy. Yes, the poor may sometimes, though not always, benefit from economic growth – which has been the focus of most Republican and Democratic administrations.
Regarding specific policies that help the poor, yes, I think social science research has done quite a bit to show that income redistibution through things like EITC, medicaid and SCHIP, free school lunches, and social security have helped the poor. Privatizing Social Security, so that you can only get back (with interest/growth) what you pay in, would not help those who pay in very little. But that has not been a concern for tthose who espouse this “ownership society.” The poor haven’t been considered there. It would dismantle a system which has reduced the poverty of the elderly dramatically.
Policratus,
Will you vote for McCain?
I may.
In another thread (I can’t remember where), Michael I. was asking if Palin had ever done anything for the poor. I don’t know if this would count in his eyes:
MM,
According to Kevin Drum, McCain was referring to wage insurance, not scrapping unemployment benefits.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/09/wage_insurance.html
Whether the government could afford this given the silly tax cuts he proposes is a different question entirely.
I think the education funding reform SB mentions is a big deal. States need to move away from funding education through local property taxes. It’s not really relevant as a national policy issue, but it was a good accomplishment.
Zak
A quick remark. You write, “Privatizing Social Security, so that you can only get back (with interest/growth) what you pay in, would not help those who pay in very little.”
I think you may be mistaken here. The plan to privatize was conceived with the poor in mind; low income wage earners would have their accounts subsidized or supplemented by government funds. Additionally, the system would have provided for the poor in that the money they saved throughout their lives would not be lost if early death were to occur – it could go to their families or relatives. (and early death is higher among low-wage earners, I believe)
I think your objection also assumes that low-income wage earners will earn the same wage their entire lives. This is undoubtedly true in some cases, but on the average I think this is false.
Further, another reason for the privatization plan is the fact that the system, as it stands now, is going to go bankrupt in the near future, especially when the baby-boomers retire starting in 2011. In order to keep it functioning as is, taxes will have to be dramatically increased.
There are many other things that were considered in the privitization plan that specifically dealt with the poor; maybe someone more knowledgeable can point the other things out.
“Doing something for the poor” = government program that make matters worse. Take for example, that bastion of the Democrat Party, Chicago – it had more people killed with guns than US soldiers died in Iraq. How can that be, with such strict gun laws ? Hmmm one wonders. And all those bitter small town folks who cling to their guns have very low crime rates, you say? No, that cannot be! Democrats bred their own underclass, with the self-defeating mindset to go with it. It’s convenient of course. The mindset of the underclass was partly shaped by government, but it cannot, or not likely, be reversed by government. Cities spend absurd money on public schools and it’s still sub-standard education in many places.
In another thread (I can’t remember where), Michael I. was asking if Palin had ever done anything for the poor.
No, I asked for evidence that she had opted for the poor, not that she had “done something for the poor.” Giving a homeless person a quarter is “doing something for the poor.” Opting for the poor is a matter of conversion, an entire change in one’s orientation.
mindset of the underclass
Who are you to speak for the “underclass,” and about their “mindset?”
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, Life At the Bottom: The Mindset That Makes the Underclass.
He is a doctor who worked in the field for decades. Not to mention that my wife sees it every day. Parole – possessions charge – back in prison – parole – possessions charge etc.
Zach,
Even if you subsidize the accounts of lower wage workers (and you’d have to do so somewhat dramatically, I’d think), you still transfer all the risk from the government to the individual. Private accounts increase as their investments increase. As someone whose 401K has done pretty poorly the last year, I’m sceptical. Maybe it’s my investment ability, although I doubt it, since only 1 or 2 options out of the 25 available for my company’s employees has grown. All the others have shrunk. Oh well, there goes retirement money. That’s ok with me, since I’m young still, and I anticipate making more money in the future. For someone with fewer financial options, that’s a bigger problem.
But the plan was not conceived with the poor in mind. It was conceived with people who think they’re smarter than the government in mind, because it was designed to win votes, not create a prudent policy that ensures seniors are not impoverished.
Gerald, I’m sceptical that Chicago (with around 450 murders a year, not all from guns) has fewer gun deaths than the US Military in Iraq (although I don’t know the percentage in Iraq from IEDs), even on a per capita basis. But your arguments only show that not all government policies accomplish their goals. Surely you concede that some do accomplish things, since you keep whining about no paid sick/vacation leave in the US. So the question, is which policies accomplish good outcomes. Your preferred policies seem to accomplish thegoal of helping Gerald. Others among us think that the focus of policies should be on helping the poor. Surely, if some policies successfully help Gerald, it isn’t absurd that others help Jim Anderson, who recently lost his job, or Larry Jones, who needs a liver transplant but sure couldn’t pay for it on his own.
Zak
“But the plan was not conceived with the poor in mind. It was conceived with people who think they’re smarter than the government in mind, because it was designed to win votes, not create a prudent policy that ensures seniors are not impoverished.”
This is a judgment you are making because you think the policy won’t work. Suppose it did work? Would you support it then, and admit that it was designed with the poor in mind?
Other disjointed remarks..
Government is nothing but a word for a bunch of people working together. I don’t see why you would trust the government more than you would trust yourself…
And all of the risk is not given to the individual, the plan was designed so that the accounts would not be able to be touched until retirement age was reached.
The return rate on social security, I believe, is negative. Most people pay in more than they get out, inflation and all. Also, if you are young, there is a good chance you will not receive your SS benefits, and the government is not obligated to give them to you.
Zak – over the summer, not in total. And in absolute numbers – from late May till Labor Day. According to CBS. 65 US casualties, 125 in Chicago.
Maternity leave wouldn’t be something the government runs, it’d be something companies would have to provide, so that’s different. I’m not against the government legislating certain minimum standards. More vacation time, for example. It’s pitiful in the US. What I had in mind were the infamous ‘projects’, welfare and so forth.
Actually, I don’t need policies that help me. I have never gotten a dime from the government. I just don’t want to pay higher taxes to finance another bad government program. That the Democrats ‘help the poor’ is a nice myth. In fact, their programs have made matters much, much worse. Segregation couldn’t do to black people what the ‘help’ of the government did and enabled.
Nobody can really say what policies would ‘help the poor’. Nor does any of the high-falutin’ talk take into account that many only have themselves to blame. Libs always view ‘the poor’ as victims, when in fact there are countless perps among them, who then victimize others. There is no grand plan. The grander the intentions, the worse the outcome.
More vacation time, for example. It’s pitiful in the US.
I have never gotten a dime from the government.
It’s hard to take you seriously when you make comments like this.
No, I asked for evidence that she had opted for the poor, not that she had “done something for the poor.”
Semantics and evasion. Do you have anything to say as to the substance of Palin’s education funding program that I described above?
Actually, the one policy issue in McCain’s speech that I agreed with him over Obama was education policy. I’m all in favor of paying teachers extremely well, but they’d better prove their worth. Public education is a disgrace. Much of it boils down to unequal funding, but the entrenched teachers unions certainly share much of the blame.
Semantics and evasion.
No, it’s not “semantics and evasion.” One major topic of my study is the Church’s teaching on the option for the poor. I know what it means and what it does not mean. It does not mean “doing something for the poor.” It means a certain type of conversion.
If you will not take the Church’s teaching on the option for the poor seriously, it is clear that you are not able to apply it to the case of Sarah Palin, nor will you be able to provide any evidence that the option for the poor has anything to do with her approach to government. It’s a shame that you seem to want nothing to do with the Church’s teaching, have no desire to understand it, and will not let it challenge your politics.
More evasion; instead of substance, you offer uninformed and irrelevant insults.
Let’s try again: You asked the other day if there was any evidence that Sarah Palin had ever “opted for the poor.” You seemed to be asking for something specific that Sarah Palin has done, not access to her internal state of mind. Thus, I offer an example: the education funding reform mentioned above. Are you simply incapable of ascertaining whether or not that counts as a good thing?
S.B. – Yes, it appears to be a good thing, especially as it concerns education. I do not take issue with the specific action you raise for scrutiny. It could certainly be cited as one example that indicates Palin takes the option for the poor seriously. I take issue with you describing it as an example of “doing something for the poor,” which is not what I asked for. The option for the poor cannot be reduced to a single action.
Well, if you’re looking for an express statement from Palin that she “opts for the poor,” you won’t find it (I bet). Nor would you find such a statement from anyone on the ballot. So I’m not sure how that’s relevant. If you want to look at specific policy actions, then you have to do so for everyone (including Palin).
I am not a military brat, but I have many vets in my extended family and I have known others through the years. Most were very reluctant to talk about their war experiences. A friend of mine, who died a few years ago, was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam. I never heard about it until I attended his funeral. The loud-mouths acting macho in bars and telling eveyone they meet that they were a Green Beret or a sniper or special ops are usually fakers. The men and women who really know war don’t talk about it much. I think if McCain wasn’t a politican he wouldn’t say so much about it -as a pol, he recognizes that it’s a compelling story and a plus and he uses it, but I always sense that part of it goes against his instinct and pre-Oprah upbringing. Maybe I’m being partisan or naive, or just thinking of the vets I know who keep their experiences very private.
One thing, I do know is that all the combat vets I have known hate war. Why wouldn’t they? They’ve suffered much more from it than any of us have. Good Lord, I’ve never seen a friend of mine ripped to shreds by a bomb and I’ve never had to shoot anyone. I thought much of McCain’s speech was a zzzzzzz, up until the end. When he made the simple statement, “I hate war” I believed him. He’s not a pacifist, certainly, but this cartoonish picture of him as a bloodthirsty warmonger is something I’ve never bought into.
McCain’s heart came out at the end, when he called people to serve. Not just in the military (he considers it a honorable thing to do, which I know many VN people do not), he also called on people to enter government and make it better, to help an illiterate adult to learn to read. In other words, don’t wait for the government to help you, get up off your butt and make the world better yourself.
I am fundamentally at odds with the Dems because they encourage a victim mentality, which leads to a sense of entitlement. Last night, McCain was calling on us to go out and do things themselves and help others themselves – to fight, and not just with an M16. I found myself quite touched watching the old guy, which is the last thing one expects from a McCain speech.
Yes; if you don’t want government to take away individual involvement, self-initiative and personal dignity, but still want to contribute to and serve the broader community, do what you, at local, state or even national levels–inside or outside government service.
Is that right, Donna?
Oh, I forgot. Just don’t become a community organizer! ;) You’ll get the flesh-clawing of the Barracuda….
Donna:
I agree very much with what you say…I also think that because of McCain’s position on the war in Iraq that he feels (or was coached) to talk about his experience. I think there is a misperception regarding those who serve in the military as warmongers. Although there may be a GI Joe type here and there, there is something very deep and noble motivating many who join up…
In a parish not far from where I grew up, there are many firemen and policemen. Very many of the sons of these men join up after highschool because they have been raised in the tradition of service; military service is seen as an obligation, a giving to one’s country. The pastor was affected so much by this that he became a military chaplian and is doing his third tour in Iraq. He is not the only priest in my diocese who has joined the military chapliancy.
There was a point in McCain’s speech when he was talking about his love of country and how he learned this during his captivity. His eyes became misty and I thought what a rare moment and priviledge it was to see this.
MarK:
As someone who has been a social worker for many years, I will tell you that the entitlement and other assisatance programs that the government provides is crippling people. They develop a sense of entitlement and demand more and more, while they make no effort and no changes. It’s one thing to provide care for those who truly need assistance, but big brother “great Society’ government hands out food stamps, healthcare, housing, etc to many able bodied people who do nothing but sit on their dupas…except of course to make more babies, but I guess this involves laying on one’s dupa. There’s a big difference between government providing a safety net and a permanent dole. Our federal social service programs need an overhaul.
“The option for the poor cannot be reduced to a single action.” nor can it be reduced to programs and ‘intentions’ that inherently violate the natural dignity and freedom of the poor, fostering the previously mentioned sense of entitlement.
The p/oor are claimed by the Democratic Party. They profess noble ‘intentions’ to distract from the , horrific results, The greed and the exploitation of the poor that is directly attributable to democrat policies.
I regard Sharpton and Jackson as the true “Uncle Toms” who extort allegiance to the democrat landowner. They distract the poor from recognizing that they are now enslaved by their manipulative ‘advocates’
little gal,
“It’s one thing to provide care for those who truly need assistance, but big brother “great Society’ government hands out food stamps, healthcare, housing, etc to many able bodied people who do nothing but sit on their dupas…except of course to make more babies, but I guess this involves laying on one’s dupa.”
I can just imagine the love you exude in your work.
Mark:
You mustn’t know too many people who work on the front line in human services, because we all see/say the same thing. Oh and I’m not talking about someone who works as a community organizer for a year or two and then runs for public office…
I think there is a misperception regarding those who serve in the military as warmongers. Although there may be a GI Joe type here and there, there is something very deep and noble motivating many who join up…
little gal,
There is also the life experience of understanding that there exists evil in this world that can’t be negotiated with, and can only be killed. Someone who has looked that evil in the eye is much more prepared to lead our military than “community organizer”.
There is also the life experience of understanding that there exists evil in this world that can’t be negotiated with, and can only be killed. Someone who has looked that evil in the eye is much more prepared to lead our military than “community organizer”.
Of course, the “evil people” that McCain “looked in the eye” were human beings that he was just previously trying to bomb.