...and I think it's worth revisiting Hillary Clinton's infamous television advertisement now that the Democratic primary season is past and the general election is upon us.
On the surface, Barack Obama appears no match for John McCain on national security issues. McCain is a bona-fide war hero, a former fighter pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam. He is the ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and has been a leader on issues of national security for much of his Senate career. I certainly respect McCain's service and record, but if we frame the "3 AM" question slightly differently, I begin to think a bit differently:
It's October 15, 1962, and photographs taken by a U2 spy plane have just revealed that mobile missile bases are being erected in Cuba, capable of launching nuclear strikes against any location in the continental United States.
The United States emerged unscathed from the Cuban Missile Crisis, without a doubt the closest we have ever come to nuclear war, because cooler heads prevailed. Yes, we had to secretly surrender our position in Turkey, but it was a major political victory for President Kennedy, the entire country, and democracy in general. There were major factions, notably military men, in both the American and Soviet governments that were pushing for war. We owe the peaceful resolution of the crisis to men like John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Adlai Stevenson that put passions aside and found the better way.
I want a Commander in Chief that is calm and collected in the heat of the moment, and I just don't see that in John McCain. He is prone to emotional fits of anger on the Senate floor, for example recently dropping the f-bomb on fellow Senator John Cornyn during open debate on an immigration bill.
In 2000, Newsweek published the following:
Why can't McCain win the votes of his own colleagues? To explain, a Republican senator tells this story: at a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, "Only an a--hole would put together a budget like this." Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: "I wouldn't call you an a--hole unless you really were an a--hole." The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. "I decided," the senator told NEWSWEEK, "I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger."
McCain's support among military leadership is also tenuous. Here are several examples:
"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor. I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."
-retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton
"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military. It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."
-retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama
"One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability. [Obama] is not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature. McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile."
-retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican now supporting Obama, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions
"A little volatile" is not what we need in these times. If we want cooler heads to prevail the next time we have a serious threat, nuclear or otherwise, John McCain better not be our next President. So question Barack Obama's lack of foreign policy experience if you must - it's a legitimate concern. Obama correctly stood up against the Iraq invasion at a time when it was unpopular to do so, pushing for a diplomatic solution. Without question I'd rather it be his inexperienced-yet-cool head be pressed against that red phone as opposed to McCain's hot head.
It's 3:00 A.M....
Posted by big.bald.dave on 7/08/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
The point at which I cried was when Romney dropped out. I knew it was over after that. At this point, I will vote for McCain, but yes, his hot-head factor (along with the affair on his first wife factor, the comprehensive illegal immigration bill factor, etc. etc.) are definite drawbacks. I am choosing between the lesser of two evils here.
Poor people skills are not the same as poor policy decisions but it doesn't surprise me when I see Obama supporters touting the value of charisma over actual qualifications. Especially when openly admitting that he brings zero foreign policy experience to the table. There simply is no correlation between being a total jerk and being unable to assess complex geopolitical issues.
Frankly McCain's wealth of knowledge, experience and savvy with regard to the international landscape reveals Obama as a wet behind the ears novice. (Given the size of his ears that is some serious wetness.) The comparison is not even close given that Obama's claim to foreign policy experience is to regurgitate 60s anti-war rhetoric.
On the other hand McCain's experience as evidenced by his long membership on the Armed Services Committee and his active role in helping to shape US policy makes the comparison all the more hopeless for Obama supporters.
Having said that I think McCain is a wretched candidate who would stab his political allies in the back if it served his interests. I really don't see much distinction between McCain and Obama with respect to domestic policy but it is evident who is better qualified in terms of knowledge, demeanor, experience and wisdom to lead the country in these dangerous times.
I'm not saying Obama is particularly qualified - he's not. But McCain's demeanor, which you state is an asset, is exactly the reason I am very fearful of a McCain presidency. I would argue that the temperament of a President is critical in the avoidance of rash decisions, and I worry that McCain's history of emotional volatility would come back to bite us all.
Is it true that Obama has had less than 150 days of activity at Congress? I read that somewhere...his # of days equals the # days that congress met, which was less than 150 since he was elected.
Right now for me it is all about potential vice presidents. I am dying of curiosity!!
I really wish we could get rid of the "military service is required in order to be a good president" mentality. Just a few things to note:
The war of 1812 was fought during James Madison's term in office. Madison never served in the military.
The Civil War was fought and won by, wait for it (drumroll please)... a lawyer from Illinois who never served a day in his life. Sound familiar?
Woodrow Wilson, who won the first World War, wrote most of the Treaty of Versailles, and formed the League of Nations never hung a uniform in his closet.
Neither did F.D.R. And he only saved the world for democracy...
By contrast, every president who presided over what most would call the biggest foreign policy disaster of the 20th century were veterans of the armed services. Vietnam, anyone?
The point is this: there is a reason the founding fathers wanted a CIVILIAN to be the commander and chief of the military. Whoever the president is, he's got a literal army of military experts surrounding him from day one, from the joint chiefs of staff on down. I don't think it's fair to say that a veteran couldn't be a good president, but I also don't think it's fair to say that a non-vet wouldn't be, either. When it comes down to it, I want a man who can reason and logic and lead with compassion and strength, regardless of if he's ever fired a gun. I've had enough in these 7 1/2 years of a president who thinks with his tanks rather than with his head.
The halls of the united states congress have seen 200+ years of statemanship and compromise. I don't want a president who doesn't think twice about dirtying those same hallways with obscenities.
Lot's of reason, logic, and compassion there, wouldn't you say?
Wow, John. You rule - good comment. BBD - you rule too - good assesment. Stephanie - how the heck is John McCain the lesser of two evils?
Rick, I don't like either choice. But, I dislike Obama more. So, McCain is the "lesser of two evils". I'm not actually calling either man evil - just using a common phrase.
I am voting for John Mccain. but for nothing involving war records.
Let's review:
Bob Schieffer of Face The Nation made an important point: "Unlike all-American war hero John McCain, Barack Obama has never "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
In response, General Wesley Clark said that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down. . . doesn't actually qualify a person to be president."
How does getting shot down in a fighter plane qualify McCain to be president? I completely agree with Wesley Clark, though his choice of words in the context was relatively unfortunate (I believe Obama used the term "inartful"). His language was all the more unfortunate, of course, because I think prior to those comments he would have made an excellent VP choice, given his foreign policy credentials and his degree in policy and economics from Oxford.
McCain is more qualified from an experience perspective, but that's because of his experience working on foreign policy matters in the Senate, not due to his experience as a fighter pilot and POW.
Oh, how I wish that one less-than-stellar sound bite didn't disqualify a person at this point in a political race! It's just ridiculous.
And Jab, seriously - no one, at any point in this thread (except you, of course) sad anything about charisma over qualifications. Don't be antagonizing, man. :)
On his radio show today, O'Reilly said that he can't see McCain going with anyone other than Romney for his VP choice. Here's to hoping!
Hi Wizzle,
When I made the reference to Obama's charisma I was referring to the totality of the comments that BBD made referencing Obama's kinder, gentler approach to foreign policy that I inferred. Notice I didn't quote charisma. But I concede your point - no one said anything about charisma so perhaps no one here thinks he has any. I do.
I know its seems antagonizing when I describe Obama's complete lack of any experience, involvement, qualifications, etc. as antagonizing. I would find it antagonizing if the candidate that I lined up to swoon behind didn't actually have anything going for him except...wait for it...hope, change, blah, blah, blah. :P
Seriously, I am not trying to be antagonizing but I will always be clear about pointing out Obama's complete lack of qualifications for POTUS. Isn't it bizarre that anyone would legitimately consider him for Senator let alone POTUS.
When Geralidine Ferraro pointed out that if Obama was white that he wouldn't stand a chance in the race the light really came on for me. Essentially her point a white Senator with such a dearth of credentials as Obama would not be given a second look. Consider the candidates that the GOP rejected and compare their qualifications and background to Obama's paltry offerings.
The GOP rejected men of tremendous experience and quality like Thompson, Romney and Tancredo. The GOP rejected men with incredible executive experience and formidable qualifications. On the other hand examine what Obama offers. He was an attorney and a community organizer. He served as a state senator and has about as much time serving in the US Senate as I have grocery shopping and believe me - I don't grocery shop much.
The point is - how does anyone justify Obama as a candidate for the most powerful office on the planet? If there is some set of secret qualifications that I haven't heard about please let me know.
Well, in his time in office - short as it is - he's been able to Win Friends and Influence People. He has inspired people to vote who have not historically done so. He has raised more money from individual donors than any candidate ever before. Call it charisma, call it pure politics, call it voodoo - it's "working", like it or not, so I guess we'll have a chance to find out if you're right in a few months. I hope you're not, because I for one sincerely want the next President, whoever he is, to be able to unite this country and undo the rifts that have appeared between the parties, so we can actually get something done in this country.
Just out of curiosity, are you hoping to convince me not to vote for him? I have had ample time to consider the options, and the fact that Obama is a Junior Senator is not exactly a revalation. Damn, too bad I can't go back in time and vote for Tom Tancredo! Where were you when I needed you??
The fact that you refer to Tom Tancredo as a "[man] of tremendous experience and quality" nullifies any argument you had going for you. Tancredo is a blatant racist, not to mention he excused himself from Vietnam War service citing mental health issues (for all I know they were legitimate issues that would legitimately excuse him from service). The Republican Party rejected him for a good reason - he's a fringe extreme-right-winger with a history of questionable mental health. Check out this video his campaign put out - utterly unbelievable.
Despite this, I'll indulge you and address the remainder of your post. Barack Obama is, well, a significantly different candidate than we have ever seen before. And frankly, I don't think that's a bad thing. He is admittedly inexperienced in certain respects, but I do think his 12 years teaching Constitutional Law give him some of the best experience a President could have. Certainly I can trust Barack Obama to not demonstrate the flagrant disregard for the Constitution that George W. Bush has clearly shown throughout his presidency on a wide range of issues.
I'm not sure I trust the traditional Presidential "qualifications". We have had some pretty terrible presidents over the years (e.g. Nixon, Carter, etc.), and I'm sure most were very "qualified". I think the two most important qualifications are good judgment and the ability of a candidate to surround him/herself with quality people. I ran across this blog post during the primary season that I thought was quite well-written. The author was a Clinton supporter, not because of her extensive experience but rather because she had demonstrated the ability to build a solid advisory team. Neither McCain nor Obama have been in much a position to build an executive advisory group, but Obama's heart is in the right place.
In my opinion, the three biggest issues facing our next President are the faltering economy, and dealing with Iran, getting out of Iraq (in that order). I don't trust McCain as far as I could throw him on any of these three issues, particularly Iran - he has consistently been wrong where Obama has consistently been right. Two-thirds of Americans support direct diplomacy with Iran, and it just kills me that McCain keeps running ads like this. It speaks volumes to me about exactly how out-of-touch he is with Americans.
And of course let's not forget McCain's recent comments on the economy. "The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should. But, I’ve got Greenspan’s book." Yeah, no thanks. Obama may not have a ton of experience, but McCain doesn't have much at all when it comes to the most important challenge we face.
Wizzle my Sizzle,
I noticed you said regarding Obama's time in office that he's been able to win friends and influence people. That's special but with those as his only qualifications he is more qualified to be Ms. Congeniality than POTUS. The fact is that he is not responsible for getting one substantive piece of legislation passed in the Senate and that is with a Donk majority. He has waffled and failed to stand firm on issues that his adoring followers said were so important. Now that he has backtracked, those same followers shout his praises for being such a good politician. Key issues that he pledged to make a stand on like federal campaign dollars, FISA, etc. have all gone down the memory hole along with the good Reverend Wright who Obama never heard say crazy things.
I would also point out as gently as I can that throwing your support being someone who represents "pure politics" as you note doesn't exactly represent the Hope 'n Change that his holiness promised. By the way he is having a hard time uniting the democrats so I'm not sure where you are reading that he is uniting the country unless of course you are just checking his website. Incidentally, what is the benefit of having a united country anyway. When did that become important as the measure of qualifications to be president. The US has always been divided and will always be divided as long as we have nanny state proponents and rugged individualists.
I don't have to (or at least I shouldn't have to) convince you not to vote for Obama. There should be ample information in his background regarding abortion, opposition to constitutional rights such as gun ownership and speech that should have any LDS person fleeing from him like he is the author of the white Salamander letter.
Lest you presume that I supported Trancredo I should advise you that I did not though I would have gladly supported him over the empty suit. I mentioned several names but you chose to focus on Tancredo. Did he pull your pony tail once - just curious as to what your beef is with him.
Now that we've had a little fun let's try to deal with actual substance (policies, positions, accomplishments, etc.). If we do that the conversation is much simpler and doesn't have to devolve into rhetorical jousting matches. But of course, I'm happy to do compete either way.
BBD
And there we have it. Tancredo is a racist. And in record time no less. And somehow because I listed him among people of more experience and quality than Obama all of my arguments are invalid. Ad hominem springs to mind - at least it does to me.
Is that really what passes for political discourse in your view? You are a contributor here and you think calling someone a racist and questioning their mental stability are debate points.
I will not lower myself to debate with someone who so recklessly throws around terms like "racist" and "questionable mental health" as though by saying them that they are facts. To go even further by tarring a poster on the site where you are a contributor is outrageous.
Whoa there friend....
You said Tancredo is a man of "quality", and I respectfully but forcefully disagree. Forget the mental health argument - you're right, it's irrelevant and I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. But did you watch the video? Did you witness his performance in the primary debates? Have you heard the man speak publicly on immigration policy? I would define a "racist" as one who discriminates against a group of people simply because of their race. However, since you obviously disagree, let's leave it at this: I feel that Tom Tancredo's policy statements reflect a disdain for Latino immigrants as a whole, regardless of immigration status, which reflects very poorly on his viability as a candidate for President of the United States.
The fact remains that you referred to Tancredo as a "quality" candidate, and that statement does a great deal of disservice to the rest of your argument. Tancredo is a fringe candidate at best, and 99%+ (literally) of Republicans agreed with me in the primaries. Your definition of "quality" is clearly different from that of the vast majority of your own party.
But fine, if you want to discuss issues, let's discuss issues. I brought up three big ones in my last post that you summarily ignored; I can't wait for your response. At least 75% of my post had nothing to do with Tancredo, whereas all of yours did. You bit on my criticism of Tancredo every bit as much as I bit on your mention of him; I'm not sure you have much room to lecture me on the nature of the discourse.
BBD,
It is obvious that you have no intention of recognizing the offense you give by so cavalierly using the term racist. Beyond that you have also continued in your ad hominem attacks of me of which I want no part. I have no intention of debating in the gutter so thank you but I think I will remain silent on your points and reserve my challenges for people a little less eager to engage in character assassination.
Well, likewise. I never said Obama was the freaking Messiah. I said I am choosing to vote for him because I think he's the best available option. You don't agree. That doesn't make you an idiot, or me. It just means we are looking for different things in a leader. Okie dokie? I'm done with you for today.
Jab, I've enjoyed most of your comments being a fellow conservative, but when you start to cry and get offended because a contributor is "tarring" a poster...well you sound a bit like a liberal, wanting everyone to be all P.C. Take it like a Man, even if you are a woman:)rrvljn
sorry the rrnljn was the word verification, no wonder it didn't work.
It is obvious that you have no intention of recognizing the offense you give by so cavalierly using the term racist. Beyond that you have also continued in your ad hominem attacks of me of which I want no part. I have no intention of debating in the gutter so thank you but I think I will remain silent on your points and reserve my challenges for people a little less eager to engage in character assassination.
Character assassination? What? Enough with the melodrama. I absolutely do not "cavalierly" throw around the term, and I think the other particpants on this blog (most of whom know me personally) would vouch for me. Obviously you have a significantly higher opinion of Tom Tancredo than I do; let's just leave it at that. In any case, I will be leaving it at that.
You have stated that Obama lacks the qualifications to be President. I agree (and have agreed in previous comments on this very thread) that he lacks the traditional qualifications to be President.
I will admit that it's a bit of a leap of faith to support someone lacking executive and lengthy foreign policy experience as Barack does. But having read his books, attended his rallies, heard his speeches, and studied his policy statements, I believe he is the leader we need right now. And of course, I'm a liberal, so his positions sit well with me, including those regarding abortion regulation and gun control.
This country needs a different President and a different direction. Perhaps this requires a different type of politician, perhaps even with a different set of experiences and training than we have seen in the past. I actually agree with Geraldine Ferraro - of course Barack Obama would never have made it this far if he were White. His improbable candidacy is a bit of a perfect storm. His race and lack of traditional experience have forced Americans to examine him under a different microscope than other candidates, and at this point at least a plurality of Americans like what they see. And while you may reject his experience as an organizer and Professor of Constitutional Law, I find it relevant and valuable. I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise, and vice versa.
I don't have to (or at least I shouldn't have to) convince you not to vote for Obama. There should be ample information in his background regarding abortion, opposition to constitutional rights such as gun ownership and speech that should have any LDS person fleeing from him like he is the author of the white Salamander letter.
I do not appreciate, and completely reject your insinuation that somehow my support of Obama's positions on abortion regulation and gun control is in conflict with my Church membership. There are plenty of liberals in the Church, and more than a few General Authorities are and have been (gasp!) Democrats. I don't have information on their specific stances on government regulation of abortion and gun control, but they are irrelevant. If you are so worried about causing offense, stop implicitly questioning the faithfulness of Church members based on perfectly legitimate political beliefs.
I am one among many active LDS members who fully support the Church's position on abortion, but don't feel that it is the government's place to regulate the practice to the degree that you (and other conservatives) do. In my opinion, there are too many cases that impact the health of the mother for the government to outlaw abortion for the entire populace. The Church's position on abortion is quite liberal among pro-life religious groups; it does allow for abortion to protect the health of the mother and in cases where a malformed fetus will not survive long after birth, while most legislative bans put forth by Republicans do not.
I support the right of the individual to own a gun for self-defense and sport, and so does Obama. However, I also believe (as does Obama) the government has the right, within reason, to regulate gun ownership. The recent Supreme Court decision supports this claim, though it found that the D.C. handgun stepped over the line of "within reason". I'm fine with that, and I appreciate that the Court finally provided some guidance on the goofy wording of the Second Amendment. Obama's refusal to issue a statement on whether or not he supports the Court's decision deprives the GOP of ammunition (pun intended) on a bigtime wedge issue. He is an extremely savvy politician and isn't stupid enough to alienate the majority of American households that own a gun. Call it a flip-flop if you want, but expressing Bush-style stubbornness on this issue isn't going to win anyone over that wouldn't be voting for him anyway. That's politics, while it may not be a different kind of politics, he is redefining politics in many other, far more important ways.
You'll have to enlighten me with regards to Obama's alleged support of policies restricting free speech. Unlike many other Democrats, he does not support bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (neither do I). Obama's press secretary in the Senate, Michael Ortiz, recently stated, "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." Sounds like a free speech advocate to me.
Here's how I see it, both candidates are are about as far away from what I would ideally like but that usually is the case in politics. With that said, I think Obama has the potential to be one of the greatest presidents that ever lived. He also has the potential to be the worst, but let's hope for the best. I have already seen him mellowing out on issues such as the time frame to get out of Iraq. He had to say certain things to dems to get elected. Now that it's a sure thing he can flip flop, which in this case I don't mind at all.
I think Matt's onto something here. As we all know, most presidential candidates tend to tack to the center after securing their party's nomination. Then, if they win and take office, they tend to change even further, not necessarily to the center but toward positions that are more pragmatic. That shouldn't come as a surprise; it's just the difference between what you have to say you're gonna do, to get elected, and what you think you can do, in your own imagination, and what is actually possible to do once you're in office. Presidents typically wind up being a lot more moderate than their party platforms and their campaign promises. It's easy for activists to stuff a party platforms full of tough words, but parties don't actually have govern a country. Presidents do.
Of all the recent presidents, the one who has responded least effectively to this natural reality check of governing is George W. Bush. And he and his party are paying the price.
But the point is that the winners aren't likely to get all that they hope for, while the losers rarely have as much to fear as they think.
--David
His race and lack of traditional experience have forced Americans to examine him under a different microscope than other candidates
Isn't the point more that because of his race, he isn't being examined under a microscope at all? The media treats him with kid gloves.
Wha wha WHAT? The whole Revered Wright thing was, I would venture to say, entirely because of his race. Crazy white pastors are familiar so they don't get the press time anymore.
Also, I totally agree with Anonymous Dave's entire comment, and Matt's observation that Obama could be a Godsend or a disaster. Fair enough. I'm kind of excited to see what happens, myself! I am really ready for a change (that's "change" with a small C, not Obama's campaign slogan "Change" by the way), and I hope it's for the better.
"Wha wha WHAT? The whole Revered Wright thing was, I would venture to say, entirely because of his race. Crazy white pastors are familiar so they don't get the press time anymore."
If Obama was white, and his pastor of 20 years was a white racist rather than a black racist then there is absolutely no way he would have received the nomination of one of the major parties. Our society knows better than to find white racism, even the taint of it, excusable. Someday I hope we will all feel the same way about black racism, but Obama's presence on the Democratic ticket shows that that day has not yet arrived.
Matt,
Your point is well taken. I read some very interesting information about the recently departed Senator Jesse Helms. He was a man that was called a racist on a regular basis and never let it take him off his game. If I achieve one tenth of Senator Helms' accomplishments I will count myself fortunate. I think the reason I find accusations of racism so offensive is that such behavior underscores the deplorable condition in which we find intellectual exchanges. There are some that are so blinded by ideology as to think such a tactic has a legitimate place in political discourse. As an author I am sensitive to my reputation but I am learning to trust that my work and history speak for themselves. In the future I will disregard such accusations and leave them to those who carelessly bandy about such incendiary comments. Thank you for the wake up call.
Correct me if I'm wrong, jab, but it seems as though you find accusations of racism in politics to be worse than the racism itself. If racism didn't exist in politics, it wouldn't be part of the discourse, or even part of the mud-slinging in the gutter off to the side of the road. :)
Post a Comment