June 12, 2008

6/12: McCain Steps In It

Liberal bloggers joined prominent Dems in launching a full-throated attack on John McCain after he told NBC's Matt Lauer that it's "not too important" to define when American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. Liberal bloggers are comparing this remark to McCain's "100 years" statement, both of which they view as evidence that McCain is fundamentally out of step with the majority of Americans when it comes to Iraq. The netroots are arguing that McCain's vision of a peaceful, long-term U.S. presence in Iraq is a fantasy, especially when one considers that Iraqi politicians are opposed to having U.S. military bases in their country indefinitely. Matthew Yglesias writes: "It's just really, really, really hard to station your troops where they're not wanted."

Many pundits predict that the economy will be the biggest issue in this year's presidential election, but the netroots are clearly itching for a debate about Iraq. And they may get what they want, since it appears that foreign policy -- not the economy -- is what animates both McCain and Barack Obama.

MCCAIN: Advocating Endless War?

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing McCain for telling NBC's Lauer that it's "not too important" to define when American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq:

Lauer: "If [the surge is] working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
McCain: "No, but that's not too important. What's important is casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine."

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain's remarks and comparing them to his "100 years" comments:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "There have been 10 American soldiers killed in Iraq during the first 10 days of this month, 189 killed this year, and 4,094 killed over the past five years, but bringing the troops home 'isn't too important' because we've got troops stationed in Germany and South Korea and no one is killing them? This is what John McCain is 'fine' with for another 100 years."
• Mark Kleiman: "For lots of the folks in Iraq -- the Guardsmen and reservists who didn't expect to be deployed to a war zone when they signed up -- service in Iraq is a substantial hardship, even if no one gets hit. From them and their families, when they get to come home and resume their normal lives is, indeed, 'that important.'"
• dday: "He's saying that leaving Iraq is not the priority, that as long as we reduce casualties the troops can remain there indefinitely. But he's also said that he would add as many troops as necessary to reduce those casualties. That's a prescription for endless war."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "This is not some gaffe or Macaca moment. It's quite clear that McSame, like Bush, wants to occupy Iraq forever. And Americans will have a clear choice in November between indefinite occupation and getting out as quickly as possible."
• The Atlantic's Yglesias: "This is stunning stuff. Having convinced a swathe of the press that it was unfair of Democrats to accurately quote McCain as saying he had no problem with American troops being in Iraq for 100 years, he's now back saying it's 'not too important' whether or not our troops ever leave Iraq. [...] Given Iraqi sentiment about this topic, McCain's vision of a long-time but utterly peaceful presence since extremely difficult to realize. It's just really, really, really hard to station your troops where they're not wanted."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "100 years redux? Actually, yes, because McCain said exactly the same thing he said the last time he got in hot water over this: he's OK with keeping troops in Iraq forever as long as it becomes as peaceful as garrison duty in Okinawa or Germany. Unfortunately, in typical McCain style, that's where he stops. He never explains how Iraq is going to be fully pacified when a large and growing majority of its residents are outraged at the idea of a long-term U.S. presence. He just doesn't get the Catch-22: he wants Iraq to become Okinawa Jr., but as long as we're there the violence is never going to stop and Iraq will stay Iraq. Casualties will never be reduced to zero."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "If there's a known path from our current state in Iraq to peace without US casualties, I haven't heard it. And once you accept that a Japan or Korea-like presence is actually impossible in Iraq, the total disconnect McCain tries to create between how long we stay and how many casualties we suffer becomes illogical."
• Oliver Willis: "You know, I'm wondering if maybe the GOP would have been better off nominating Mitt Romney."

MCCAIN II: What's So Great About Permanent Bases?

Liberal bloggers believe that the U.S. has no reason to maintain permanent bases in Iraq:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If McCain is going to use this analogy, he owes us some explanation of how, exactly, Iraq is going to become the sort of place in which we can deploy our troops as safely as we do in Japan or Germany, and how long he thinks this will take. [And] why on earth are we supposed to want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years? What is the benefit that justifies the costs to our troops and their families, our armed forces, our other foreign policy interests, and our treasury?"
• Yglesias: "Amidst his analogies to South Korea and Germany, McCain seems to be missing the part where he explains why making permanent bases our key war aim is a good idea. We maintained our garrison in West Germany because of the Warsaw Pact across the border and you can't understand why our troops are in South Korea without thinking about North Korea. But what are they going to be doing in Iraq? Fighting Iran? That seems like a recipe for ensuring that Iraq never becomes peaceful and stable, since if our goal in Iraq is to create a platform for anti-Iranian activities then the Iranians would seem to have no choice but to stir up as much trouble as possible."
• Drum: "Even if casualties did drop to zero, would we really want a long-term neocolonial presence in Iraq anyway? Why? To protect the oil? That was pumping just fine before we were there. To fight al-Qaeda? They're in Pakistan. To ensure a presence in the area? We already have bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere. How the hell many do we need?"
• BooMan: "Whether you're a progressive, a paleoconservative, or a libertarian, there is so much wrong with McCain's worldview that it's hard to know where to begin. For those of us that have long questioned America's forward-leaning foreign policy of maintaining military bases in nearly 200 foreign countries, McCain's lazy acceptance of century-long foreign occupations is discordant, to say the least."

MCCAIN III: That's Not Context We Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers aren't buying the McCain camp's explanation of the AZ senator's remarks. Here is part of the McCain camp's statement:

"...John McCain was asked if he had a 'better estimate' for a timeline for withdrawal. As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this and reject the Obama campaign's attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth."

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The thing is, though, that McCain didn't merely say that when the troops come home is 'not as important' as other factors, as the statement says. Rather, he said that it was 'not too important' when they come home. This is precisely what Dems are criticizing today, and it's unclear to me why the larger context changes this basic fact about what he said. Indeed, McCain's belief that the timing of withdrawal is not too important is really the centerpiece of the argument between the GOP and Dems, who argue that withdrawing without delay is extremely important -- both to the troops themselves, and because of our overstretched military."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they're not. This is what McCain believes: that we should have a long-term troop presence in Iraq to guarantee the survival of a pro-U.S. government and assert power in the region. That's not a crazy position. That's the position of the current administration. [...] The problem isn't that McCain's position is incomprehensible. It's just not popular. Most Americans think reducing casualties is important too. But they'd like to do both -- reduce casualties and leave too. The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy, which is close to lethal since the vast majority of Americans disagree with his policy and Iraq is virtually the only thing he's running on. The context the McCain campaign keeps trying to put forward after the fact is what they wished he'd said rather than what he did. And even that, when you push deep, isn't that different from McCain's actual policy, which is that he doesn't think we should be leaving Iraq for years to come, most likely decades."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I realize why these guys are spinning like tops. Most Americans -- especially the troops and their families -- don't want to a hear a prospective candidate say that it's 'not too important' when the troops come home from Iraq. But the problem is, and the reason the campaign can't come up with a coherent response, is that McCain actually believes what he said."

MCCAIN III: Cheney? Hell Yeah!

As McCain attempts to distance himself from the Bush Administration, liberal bloggers are pointing out that McCain praised Vice President Dick Cheney in 2006, as The Politico's Jonathan Martin reports:

"In an interview [McCain] gave to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes in 2006 for Hayes' biography, 'Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President,' McCain said: 'I will strongly assert to you that he has been of enormous help to this president of the United States.'

Going further, McCain even told Hayes in comments heretofore unpublished that he'd consider Cheney for an administration post.

Asked whether he'd be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: 'I don't know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah.'"

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Cheney's Third Term? 'Hell, yeah.' [There]'s a thought that's enough to chill the blood."
• TAPPED's Tom Schaller: "Holy smokes: Why is Barack Obama under-selling the notion of 'Bush's third term' when he rightly can and should be selling it as a third 'Bush-Cheney term'?!"
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "Enthusiastically proclaiming you would want someone as unpopular as Dick Cheney serving in your administration? How mavericky! [...] You almost have to feel bad for McCain and the fine line he has to tread. On the one hand he has to distance himself from the miserable failure that is the Bush years; on the other hand he has to reassure the dead-enders (aka the GOP base) that he really does consider Bush/Cheney a fantastic success. It's no wonder why, then, that McCain will find himself praising the Bushies one minute, and running away as quickly as possible the other. At least it will make for some fun campaign moments."
• Yglesias: "Never fear, though, John McCain is in no sense offering a third Bush term. [...] McCain's just a guy who wants to continue most of Bush's policies and admires Bush's key henchmen and wants to keep them serving in government office. But that doesn't mean he represents more of the same. It's just a different kind of change -- hell yeah!"

Meanwhile, Salon's Glenn Greenwald notes that McCain emphasized his similarities with Bush during a 2005 interview with NBC's Tim Russert:

"I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

Greenwald: "That pretty much speaks for itself, and I hope the Obama campaign uses it. Last week, McCain essentially called Obama a liar for suggesting that McCain's election would bring about George Bush's third term, but three years ago, McCain himself proudly declared that 'on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, [he's] been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.' The 2005 McCain was right."

MCCAIN IV: It's A Series Of Tubes

Several liberal bloggers are buzzing about a recent video in which McCain, after being asked whether he was a Mac person or a PC person, replied: "Neither, I'm an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get."

• Mother Jones' Jonathan Stein: "Do we want a commander-in-chief who can't use a computer without assistance?"
• Atrios: "I think in 2008 computer use and understanding of the internet should be part of the basic skill set we expect from people in positions of prominent public leadership. It's pretty much impossible to have any kind of understanding of how people in the modern world go about their lives and work without that. [...] I don't mean it's important for someone running for president to spend his/her days on Facebook or becoming immersed in all of the various internet subcultures. But how can you have any genuine sense of contemporary life unless you at least have some clue?"
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "There are those who chafe a bit when we take shots at McCain's age, but there's always a deeper point lurking behind many of those shots (cheap or not) -- leading the world's sole superpower in this digital era should require basic understanding of those things which drive the modern culture and economy. [...] How can a candidate who admits he is stuck in the 20th century lead a country in the 21st, when he lacks even the most basic understanding of how this brave new century operates? He doesn't know how people interact and communicate. He doesn't know have the faintest idea of how they work. And this from the guy who once chaired the commerce committee! Is it any wonder that McCain has been completely unable to adapt to the rigors of a 21st century campaign, in which YouTube and blogs can instantaneously expose every single one of his myriad flip flops and capture every one of his ghastly grins?"

MCCAIN V: Too Green For The GOP?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing McCain's views on energy and the environment:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "It's going to be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans to get traction on the energy issue without help at the top of the ticket. Here, the problem is that John McCain long ago signed on to the anthropogenic global warming fallacy. As a result, his energy policies can scarcely be distinguished from those of the Democrats. [...] The smartest thing John McCain could do right now is take two weeks off from the campaign trail to study the scientific data on the earth's climate. He could familiarize himself with the latest scientific work, which has decisively refuted the global warming alarmists. He could meet with distinguished scientists on all sides of the issue. After two weeks, he could announce that his study of the issue has convinced him that the effect of CO2 on the earth's climate has been grossly exaggerated, and as a result, he is tweaking his own energy policy in the direction of greater support for domestic oil and gas production."
• NRO's Larry Kudlow: "When asked about gas prices at the pump, and whether they could go any lower, Sen. McCain said he didn't think so because 'You've got a finite supply, basically, and a cartel controlling it.' This is exactly wrong. There is no finite supply, or if there is we are 100 years away from it. [...] Democrats are out there pushing cap-and-trade, which would jack up gasoline and oil energy prices, damage the economy, and create a massive central-planning exercise. The Democratic Congress has done nothing to alleviate the oil shortage. They're captured by the greenies. They should be blamed. This is a real turnaround issue for the Republicans and Mr. McCain. But McCain's not going there."

Conservative bloggers are particularly upset that McCain compared drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with drilling in the Grand Canyon:

"[McCain] said that he opposed drilling in ANWR for the same reason that he 'would not drill in the Grand Canyon...I believe this area should be kept pristine.' (Proposed oil and gas exploration in ANWR would only affect 2,000 of its 19 million acres, or 0.01 percent.)"

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "McCain's chief virtue is also his vice: Economic and political circumstances may change, but gosh darn it, he's sticking to his guns come what may. You'd better come up with one honey of a VP pick, Maverick. Exit question: How high do gas prices have to get before that precious 0.01 percent starts to look somewhat less pristine? Do we need to see actual gas lines?"
• Michelle Malkin: "McCain. Ugh."

OBAMA: And Another One Bites The Dust

Conservative bloggers mocked Obama after Jim Johnson, who had been helping to lead Obama's VP search committee, "stepped down Wednesday as Republican criticism of his home mortgage deals became a distraction for a candidate who eschews Washington insider influence":

• RedState's Ben Domenech: "I'm beginning to like Barack Obama. He's so wonderfully predictable. Each time there's a blowup -- a friend of his who highlights the hypocrisy of his HopeChange message, a connection to the corruption of Chicago politics, an adviser or spiritual mentor saying offensively wacky things -- Obama responds with the same round of obfuscations: (1.) Obama denies there is a problem. (2.) Obama insists he was misunderstood. (3.) Obama ignores the problem. (4.) Obama caves."
• see-dubya: "Question -- so if James Johnson didn't really 'work' for Obama, can he resign from a job he never had?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "It is becoming easier to understand how Obama got swept into the orbit of Tony Rezko: he seems to lack basic common sense about the appearance of ethical improprieties and possesses the arrogance to believe no one will question his motives. It's a deadly combination."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "This is a perfect example of what happens when you have to make a transition from lofty rhetoric to actually leading. The first important decision Obama will make is choosing a vice president, and yet the man tasked with helping him conduct that search is forced to resign. Maybe from now on Obama should hire vetters to vet the vetters? What an utter debacle."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "Obama seems to have an odd and rather unendearing personality tic whereby he considers his every instinct to be perfect. If he had pondered the matter a little more closely, he probably would have realized that Johnson wasn't the right guy for the job. I guess the whole Hope/Change gestalt doesn't allow for reflection."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Once again, we see that Obama's first instinct when encountering a skeptical questioner is to challenge the questioner; 'no, you're wrong.' Twenty-four hours ago, this was 'a game' and Johnson didn't work for Obama. Once again, as with [Jeremiah] Wright, and the flag pin, and Trinity United, etc., the initial answer is now inoperative."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Being both arrogant and careless doesn't bode well for someone who will have to run a nation. It's already led to a series of gaffes and missteps on the campaign trail, such as his two-step on Iran, his two-step on Jerusalem, his two-step on the surge, and more. Obama needed a few years more to break down the arrogance and start learning how to manage himself, let alone a campaign and then a nation."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama has blown his first week as the Democratic nominee defending a DC insider who took the special deals from the deep pockets which Obama has been blasting his opponents for for months. When will Marc Rich's patron saint Eric Holder step down from his job on the same committee?"

OBAMA II: Good Call, Barack

Some liberal bloggers are glad that Johnson resigned:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I'm glad the Obama campaign realized this is not a battle worth waging. The fact is, Obama is likely to be held to a higher standard than McCain is on various measures over the coming months because Obama has staked his campaign largely on judgment and a new kind of politics. Who Obama surrounds himself with, whether in an official paid capacity or not, matters and it's good that they've learned that lesson now rather than later."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Good move by the Obama camp. [...] Next time, let's be careful BEFORE we name folks like Johnson, who clearly epitomized everything Obama was said to be running against. Politics is phony theatre, but this was a bit too much."

Balloon Juice's John Cole thinks this is a non-issue: "If prior to reading this post, you had no clue who Jim Johnson was, don't worry, you are not alone. In fact, if you polled the country, about half of them would ask if you were talking about the former Cowboys coach, the other half would have no clue. Which is to say this is a story about nothing. [...] The only thing that matters is who the VP choice will be, not who vetted the choice. Quick: Who vetted John Edwards? Al Gore? No fair using Google. The only reason some people remember who vetted Dick Cheney is because it was...Dick Cheney. How is that working out for the country?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: He's A Liberal, But He's A Thoughtful Liberal

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat analyzes Obama's political style:

"As evidence that on judicial appointments, his candidate isn't 'quite the knee-jerk liberal base-pleaser some want us to believe,' Andrew [Sullivan] marshals this Daily Kos guest post from 2005, in which Obama defends [WI Sen.] Russell Feingold's and [VT Sen.] Pat Leahy's votes to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court. And Andrew's right, in a sense: The post is in many respects a brave and thoughtful rebuke to the Kossack, scorched-earth style of politics, and an eloquent defense of the tradition that gives Presidents the benefit of the doubt when they appoint obviously-qualified nominees to the high court.

The only thing undercutting all this bravery is the fact that Obama himself voted against John Roberts, because Obama himself actually agreed with the the liberal base that 'too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give...Roberts the benefit of the doubt,' all those high-minded thoughts notwithstanding. But he wanted the Kossacks -- and us -- to know that his decision wasn't a knee-jerk one, that it was made in a careful, contemplative fashion, and that he understands (as he always does) why someone else might have come to a different conclusion.

The results are the same, but the style is so much more thoughtful."

LEST WE FORGET: Dreams Deferred

Radar's Scott Jacobson, Todd Levin, Jason Roeder, Mike Sacks, and Ted Travelstead compile a list of "100 Reasons You Can't Sleep." Here are some of the highlights:

• Can't stop worrying about Britney
• That guard keeps shining his goddamn flashlight in your eyes
• Person in next hostel bunk won't stop crying out in Afrikaans
• Staying up one more hour to see how Ron Popeil will blow your mind this time
• Can't remember where you put that baby
• Haven't changed your Facebook status in almost three hours
• Should never have ordered Ambien from Craigslist
• Impatiently awaiting news of Ace of Base reunion
• Suddenly realized you chose the path most traveled

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 12, 2008 12:59 PM