John McCain shows a lot of class
October 11, 2008
This reminds me of the Sen. John McCain I once truly admired and almost resolved to vote for. His defense of Sen. Barack Obama when a woman at a McCain rally claimed that Obama was “an Arab” and his assurance at another rally that Obama would not be a president that we should fear were displays of pure class. I have been listening to a lot of conservative radio lately, especially Sean Hannity, and the “terrorist connection” has been the chief topic this past week in election discussions. I have been glad to see McCain rising above that garbage the past two days, despite getting booed by his so-called supporters.
24 Comments
Comments are closed.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Let’s hope his ads and Sarah follow suit.
Yet McCain’s internet ad linking Obama with domestic terrorism, clearly meant to instill fear, continues to run. Color me skeptical.
Let me tell you, if THIS is what we’re seeing in a place like NORTH CAROLINA:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/nc/08-nc-pres-ge-mvo.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/08NCPresGEMvO.xml&choices=Obama,McCain&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines=1&colors=
…then AMERICA is rejecting the “socially conservative” “base” of the Republican Party. The evening of November 4th is going to be a bad night for “conservatives.”
I agree and was pleased to see this. Especially when he told the guy that we don’t have to be afraid of an Obama presidency.
I appreciate that he corrected the woman who believes Obama is an Arab. What I don’t like is that he said “No, he’s not at Arab. He’s a good, family loving citizen.” As if Arabs cannot be good people, cannot love their families, cannot be “good citizens.” With that comment, he simply reinforces the racism of his followers.
But at least he is apparently trying. And appearing human is worth a shot, I guess, since his campaign is crumbling.
Completely off topic:
hurrahingtheharvest, your dog icon… Looks just like my dog! We always debate what mix she is. What’s yours?
Michael,
It’s I, Mark DeFrancisis. I cannot figure out how to link my name to the name of a new personal blog.
She is a Doppel Dachshund Mini. She actually has one blue and and one brown one! I have two others like her.
I do believe that he personally wants to run a different campaign than the ones which pervaded the lat two elections. And Obama, also.
While both want to win, and do have campaign machines that act somewhat independently of each, a remarkable civility is notable in each’s campaign. I do think that he has somewhat ceded his control to the campaign machinery of the Republican party and does not have full control of them (or time to monitor them).
Ours has to be part dachshund then, as we expected. She’s beagle-sized but with the coloring and head/snout shape of a dachshund.
Do post/send a link to your blog.
When did Rove’s hatchet men do greater damage to John McCain? In 2000 or 2008?
To me it seems like a very easy question to answer. But what do you think?
–Josh Marshall
I think that McCain is an honorable man, with the usual flaws all of us have. The unfortunate thing is that Bush, not McCain won in 2000. I think many things would have been a lot different. But, that’s the crappy nature of the primaries – you have to appeal to those who care the most, ie the fanatics – in either party. In this, primaries and online Catholicism are a lot alike.
The entire Byzantine nature (apologies to Henry) of American politics, from gerrymandering to Iowa-trolling to winner-takes-all ought to be radically reformed. Of course, you can’t expect parties to sign their own death warrants. It takes a man of the stature of Washington to step down when lifelong power would have been easy to maintain. But, instead of enlightened Deists, today we have crazy Evangelicals with a direct line to God, bad Catholics, scarily good Catholics (such as former Sen. Santorum) and afrocentrist hoot/holler aficionados. Ay-men.
My 3 cats laugh at your dogs and their dogged natures.
Is this post a joke?
I notice that there are still ads up on the McCain web site that use words in reference to Obama like “dangerous,” “dishonorable,” and “too risky for America.” Of course I was glad to hear McCain say “you don’t have to be scared” of an Obama presidency, but the message of his campaign recently has been just the opposite.
As many commentators have been pointing out, McCain-Palin campaign has actually been two campaigns, the McCain campaign and the Palin campaign. We see McCain himself in the debates, and he doesn’t accuse Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” On the other hand, we see Palin doing exactly that, whipping up crowds with smears of Obama (“I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.”). It is driving some Republicans nuts, since they can’t understand why, if Ayers is an issue, McCain himself won’t confront Obama with it.
It seems to me what happened in the clips we saw is that the Palin campaign spilled over into the McCain campaign, and he had to repudiate it, not because he isn’t the principal architect of both campaigns, but because he wants them kept separate. So unless the whole tone of the Palin campaign changes, I don’t think what McCain did amounts to much. He was just separating himself from his “attack dog” vice-president’s campaign, which is not classy, but simply politics as usual.
I agree.
McCain deserves about as much credit for this as a man who defecates and then notes that it smells bad.
David and G, I agree:
http://vox-nova.com/2008/10/10/the-deep-roots-of-obama-hatred/#comment-39575
What the GOP needed to win with any vigor this year was the John McCain of 2000 (imagine what would have happened if Rove’s tactics in SC that year had backfired as they ought to have). But the GOP base was sufficiently contaminated by Rovian kool-aid to make that impossible. If McCain wins, the chalice he will drink will not only be contaminated by W’s legacy but by choices McCain made in the course of getting to the White House (while that’s true of all candidates, McCain is no longer the person who one used to feel it was less true of).
Forgive me for questioning what seems to be a forgone conclusion, but might one for a moment consider the veracity of the charge and not just the impoliteness of it? William Ayers is in fact a terrorist who’s actions resulted in the death of innocent people. He has not only admitted to the actions he undertook, but he has never apologized for them and has, as recently as 2001, stated that he was only sorry he hadn’t bombed more targets (thus endangering the lives of more innocents).
Obama knows this man and has allowed him to aid his political career concretely (for the record I don’t care that they were on the same board. I have been on boards with people I think are morons. But the fact is that Ayers was part of Obama’s rise in Chicago.)
Perhaps “palling around” is too general a phrase with too many possible intepretations and comes off as rude in our ever so politically Victorian society. How about this though, “Barack Obama allowed his political career to be directly advanced by a known terrorist, whom he knew was a terrorist…. Oh and he voted three times for infanticide… which ought to count as terrorism.”
Sure it is impolite at cocktail parties to point out the foibles of our weaker natures, but certainly in a presidential campaign it should be allow to note the stupendously bad judgements of your appointment, even if “palling around with terrorists” is too blunt a phrase.
I ask the following with all honesty: setting aside for the moment the ugliness and utter stupidity of political campaigns (you know like saying your opponent is out of touch because he doesn’t use e-meil while ignoring the fact that his war wounds preclude him from typing), what exactly is wrong with pointing out that a presidential candidate with absolutely no executive experience and only three years in the U.S. Senate has shown phenomenally bad judgement in associating himself with a man and benefiting financially from that association when that man actually did engage in terrorism and is unrepentant about it? What am I missing here?
MSNBC and Huffington Post. How typical.
I have never believed that Obama was a terrorist. But by his associations was deeply flawed in the judgment department.
Why did he associate with those people? My guess is that he’s a Chicago politician, and that is the only way for a Chicago politician to get elected.
If he would say that, it would completely deflect most of the criticism. My worry isn’t that Obama went to Ayers’ house to launch his career, but that a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers supports Obama.
Obama, the choice of crooks, America-haters and terrorists.
As I’ve said before, one of the dumbest things the Republican party ever did was to nominate Bush instead of McCain 8 years ago. One of the dumbest things McCain ever did was not changing sides, as I hear he briefly considered, after the 2000 election. Had he left the Republican party, where most of them hate him anyway, it’s quite possible the Democrats would have run him in 04 and quite possible he would have won. He certainly would have been more formidable than Kerry. While I still have some affection for the guy, he’s caught in a downdraft now with age having crept up on him to the point of being an ‘issue’ with some voters. But I don’t write him off. Bin Laden can be expected to weigh in at some point with his usual election year ‘greeting card’ and then there’s the unknown Bradley effect.
“I have never believed that Obama was a terrorist. But by his associations was deeply flawed in the judgment department”.
You can add Marilyn Katz, former security chief for the radical Students for a Democratic Society, to Obama’s list of friends & staff. FYI, “she once
advocated throwing studded nails in front of police cars, back in the SDS days when the group was alledged to have thrown cellophane bags full of human excrement at cops and cans of urine and golf balls impailed with nails What does she do now? She is a chief strategist, fundraiser and public relations maven for Obama….She’s often a go-to quote for reporters to knock down the Ayers-Obama story.”.(Chicago, Tribune, 10/12/08).
I heard McCain is friends with war criminals. Does that bother anyone at all?
But by his associations was deeply flawed in the judgment department”.
Speaking of ‘the judgment department’ — M’Cane picked as his running mate a person who is completely unqualified to serve as president, even in the opinion of many conservatives. And he did that — not in his salad days — but just a few short weeks ago. Now that the air has come out of the Sarah Souffle, she’s been relegated to campaign zookeeper, tossing red meat into the cages of the drooling wacko fringe of the party who is rapidly turning on M’Cane. Quite amusing to watch them hobbling along.
M’Cane – Fey 2008
Obama, the choice of crooks, America-haters and terrorists.
Actually, Tony, Obama is the choice of real patriots. It’s Republicans, who care nothing about decency, the rule of law, or humanity, who support McCain.
Bill Ayers didn’t kill anyone with his bombs, unlike the coward John MkKain who dropped bombs on villages from an airplane.
Who’s really hanging out with “terrorists”? The answer is clear: Sarah Palin.
She: “He’s an Arab.”
Mc Bush: “No, ma’am he’s not … he’s a decent family man”
OK, I’m glad to know that Arabs are not decent family men. And while we are at it, would it be so very bad if Obama WERE a Muslim?