Forget about “straight-talk” when it comes to GOP Presidential nominee John McCain the standard is ‘don’t take his word for it, take ours’ according to the Republican National Committee (RNC), which is protesting the use of John McCain’s own words for a TV ad that describes John McCain’s objectionable policy position in Iraq.
Here’s the ad:
I understand why the RNC is upset about the ad. The vast majority of American’s don’t like John McCain’s policy position in Iraq. If Democrats keep playing the ad, then voters will realize they disagree with John McCain – and they won’t vote for him. That makes the ad powerful – and fair.
Comments 8
Fair? At best, the ad’s misleading. Here’s the complete text of McCain’s response: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’d be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” Shame on the Dems for distorting McCain’s true views as well as showing that violent footage.
Posted 29 Apr 2008 at 7:31 pm ¶Hi Roy,
Thanks for commenting!
The ad is only misleading if you buy the nonsense that John McCain is selling.
Let me offer an example that, while trivial in itself, shows the absurdity. If someone told me “President Bush says this winter in Chicago you won’t need to wear a winter jacket – what do you think?” And then I responded “Maybe you don’t need a sweater either – or a long-sleeved shirt. As long as the temperature this winter in Chicago is over 75 degrees F, that’d be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we don’t overdress.”
Now, if you accept the (false) premise that winters in Chicago are normally over 75 degrees F, then my argument is reasonable – just as if you accept the (false) premise that a five-year violent war with American casualties of over 4,000, tens of thousands of Americans injured and around 1/5 or more of all of our troops suffering from psychological or cognitive injuries is likely to suddenly stop causing American casualties. That is, that our military involvement and presence, which attracted foreign terrorists to Iraq who were not in Iraq before, will suddenly cause (for no particular reason) these violent people attacking us to start ignoring us (while we help attack them) for as much as 100 years of our (forthcoming) occupation.
Put another way, you can play mind games and, say, “assume a bank.” But you get into trouble if you then try to withdraw money or borrow against money in the real world from said imaginary bank.
Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶Hiram, I simply wanted to point out that the Dems conveniently and not surprisingly took McCain’s response out of context. Let us put ourselves in the position of the open-minded, independent voter who is unaware of McCain’s “100 years” comment. If he were to view this ad, he would find same to be misleading if after viewing the ad he were to Google McCain’s response in its entirety. In this rapidly-paced world of politics we now live in, such information, whether it’s from a blog or a YouTube video, is readily accessible. If this independent voter were to view the McCain video in its entirety, he would conclude that the Democratic Party is distorting McCain’s views. Dems thrive on ads like this since they attack the opponent negatively, instead of honestly presenting Democratic Party values with conviction. The undecided voter would appreciate the latter more (“I want to know why I should vote for you, and not why I should not vote for the other guy”). I’m sorry I cannot understand your analogy. Your weather forecast is not analogous to the war against terror. In your weather analogy, both you and the President invite some kind of behavioral response to air temperature. It is your “(false) premise” regarding temperatures over 75 degrees, not Bush’s premise, that you relate to a “(false) premise” regarding the consequences of the war. Our national interests and security is at stake. That is why we are in the region in the first place. Had the Clinton administration kept an eagle eye out for Bin Laden instead of enjoying the fruits of twelve years of Republican leadership in the White House, President Bush (43) would not have had to spend his entire eight years in office trying to clean up this mess. Many more GIs perished during WW2. But it’s the Dems who are practicing the politics of fear by crying out the number of American casualties. In a perfect world, no one wants war, but throughout history we have found ourselves at war. Currently, for example, we need to hunt down Bin Laden and do our best to prevent another 9/11. It is so easy for you Dems to appeal to voters’ emotional reactions instead of their intelligence just so you can get elected into office and allow both our national security infrastructure to crumble and others to kick us around.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 6:20 am ¶Hi “Roy,”
I almost deleted your comment because I have concluded you are most likely trolling – your email beginning in “rapide09″ further suggests that what you’re doing is less than above board.
I will not publish further comments from you if they are like the one above.
Disagreement is welcome – dishonesty that wastes my time and distracts from honest argument and better understanding is not.
Posted 02 May 2008 at 7:35 am ¶Hiram, I hope you would reconsider. I do enjoy your blog. While I do not agree with everyone’s opinions, I do respect them. As for my e-mail address, if you must know, I am an Aston Martin fan. I use “rapide09“ because the recent 4-door coupe concept car, the Aston Martin Rapide, was orginally due out in 2009. However, the latest issue of Automobile magazine suggests the car won’t come out until 2010. (P.S. I’m attempting to posting this again because I think my internet connection had timed out.)
Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:03 pm ¶Hi Roy,
We may disagree on the Democrat’s McCain ad and likely other things – I have no problem with that. I do think the comment I found objectionable was so because it made a number of claims that were, to put it kindly, pretty far out there including attributing Democratic appeal primarily to emotions instead of intelligence. While both parties obviously appeal to emotions – given the GOP approach with George W. Bush (among others) this is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I think you’ll find in my blog that I document my positions and provide for intelligent discussion. In contrast, your Bin Laden points, to take one example, are undocumented by you and seem tremendously undercut by a Bush Administration that is on record as completely failing in apprehending him over the last six years (even after claiming that he was a priority to capture “dead or alive,” cornering him, failing to capture him, and then essentially dropping pursuit). Some circumspection is in order. I’ve never claimed Democrats are perfect (and in fact I’m publicly critical of them on varying issues) – but the GOP record is extremely bad on this issue among others.
Back to McCain’s 100 years in Iraq quote, here’s your context in this article which summarizes McCain’s position quite well with
“[W]hat the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn’t really all that unfair. McCain’s wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal – that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.”
America rejects John McCain’s position on this issue – at least based on public opinion polls. It’s a real problem for John McCain in the general election.
Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:01 pm ¶GENTLEMEN:
THE WAY I SEE THIS IS, DO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A CANDIDATE THAT IS WINNABLE IN NOVEMBER? I DON’T SEE THAT. MC’CAIN IS THE ANSWER.
-ROBERT JONES
Posted 05 May 2008 at 9:17 am ¶Either candidate can beat McCain, as shown in the latest polls. To me, the more interesting candidate is Barack Obama. Like 1960, 2008 is a time when America is ready for a new generation of leadership, one that can understand baby boomers as well as our youth. Barack will beat McCain as long as we get out the youth vote (18-29), and he can also gain the confidence of moderates and independents and convince them that progressive is the right direction to take our country.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 8:55 pm ¶