Getting Specific

It's a bit odd that John McCain would decide that now's a good time to criticize Barack Obama for lacking specifics in his proposals. On the one hand, Obama has all these detailed proposals. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has been trying this attack for a while now and it's not working. It's probably not working because Obama does, in fact, have detailed proposals but his speeches are relatively light on them because that's how you put an effective speech together. The third thing that makes it a strange decision on McCain's part is what Jon Chait observes here:

McCain is like Obama in that he's appealed to voters largely on the basis of broad themes and his personal charisma and history. The difference is that Obama is a former law professor who's actually done his homework on the policy, and McCain is still winging it.

Chait supplies the following video as illustration:

This sort of thing happens all the time to McCain who, by his own admission, doesn't know much about economics and as you can tell from his ideological meandering, he doesn't really care about it either. He liked war, and he liked getting attention for bucking Bush, and then more recently he liked hewing to the orthodox line, but he doesn't know anything about the subject and certainly can't answer questions in detail. Check out, for example, his vague as hell detailed Social Security proposals:

John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security and believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts -- but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity and power.

That's right -- Americans have the right to know the truth and the truth is that on retirement security, McCain is the only candidate with the courage to vaguely allude to unspecified benefit cuts, to be applied to unknown persons at an unknown time. Because after all, no problem is more in need of honesty, and nothing is more important in a candidate then specifics. McCain will hope Democrats agree to go along with his Mystery Plan, and if they don't act, he will . . . to do something . . . to someone's benefits . . . at some point.

Comments

The politics of failure have failed. We must make them work again. We must go forward not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Posted by Kodos | February 14, 2008 9:26 AM

John McCain is capable of straight talk in both directions.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | February 14, 2008 9:32 AM

Oh, please let McCain waddle into this fight. He's only slightly less ignorant than Huckabee and Giuliani.

Every now and then, you hear someone say that Obama doesn't have much in the way of substance. I'm not sure if those people deserve to be punched in the face, or if the media deserves to be punched in the face for their abject failure to ever mention issues.

I'm a centrist, though, so let's take the middle route and go with abortions for some, and punches in the face for both.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 14, 2008 9:38 AM

Well, the old coot is specifically for waterboarding and torture. So let's give him that.

Posted by norbizness | February 14, 2008 9:47 AM

As long as it doesn't stick, which is shouldn't, this move is actually great for Obama. The more McCain stalks around accusing Obama of lacking specifics, being basically just a charismatic airhead, the lower the bar gets for him. So when Obama turns the specifics spigot on, everyone will be even more amazed. It's like calling Bush a moron. All he had to do was not drool in public for him to look super-awesome.

Posted by NHCt | February 14, 2008 9:49 AM

John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security and believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes.

Isn't that essentially a way of saying there is no problem? If we can meet all of our current and ongoing obligations without raising taxes, what's the crisis?

John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts.

Thank god, there is finally a candidate willing to talk straight about our need for... 401k plans. But how can he ever get them passed? He'll need lots of courage and straight talk about it.

Posted by Brad L | February 14, 2008 9:52 AM

Even though HRC may have been using the same tactic unsuccessfully, it will of course get traction in the press if St. StraightTalk McMaverick starts to say it. Because everything he says is the gospel truth!

Posted by ajw_93 | February 14, 2008 10:06 AM

John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will.

Oh, noes! Does this mean he will declare martial law? Seriously, WTF?

Posted by Jeff S. | February 14, 2008 10:09 AM

I can't wait to see Obama and McCain debate in the general election! Obama is clear, detailed, and knowledgeable about policy (he's had to be in his debates against HRC and Edwards). McCain, on the other hand, sounds vague, unknowledgeable, and bumbling in debates. Even his stump speeches and victory speeches are clumsy and frankly boring.

Posted by SN | February 14, 2008 10:17 AM

If I were on Obama's staff, I would be setting out a strategy for inducing McCain into as many and as free-form debates as possible in the fall.

Posted by Sean | February 14, 2008 10:17 AM

Much as I loved the video, it was an unfair
question from Ron Paul. It's a brilliant
play on the politicians' inability to say
"I don't know" even when he or she could not
be expected to know.

. . .

egghead vs. meathead (personality slurs encouraged?)

Posted by lgm | February 14, 2008 10:19 AM

I think Chait, or whoever did the video, is right to use the Admiral Stockdale device at this point. But wise cracks from smart-ass college kids will have diminishing returns in the general election. I expect that the norm will continue to be that youngsters make a lot of noise during the campaign, but geezers vote.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 14, 2008 10:20 AM

McCain's turning out to be a much of an airhead as Shrub -- maybe hot-headed air, but an airhead all the same. Heckuva job, Johnny!

Posted by mle | February 14, 2008 10:23 AM

I'm waiting for McCain to state publicly that he has a "secret plan" to end the war.

That, or for a tentacle to pop out of his forehead during a press conference.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | February 14, 2008 10:24 AM

I'm waiting for McCain to state publicly that he has a "secret plan" to end the war

Hasn't McCain already said he has a secret plan to find bin Laden, and is unable to tell Bush due to secret reasons that we're not allowed to know?

Posted by Alexander | February 14, 2008 10:28 AM

McCain's plan: We will meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future by reneging on them.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | February 14, 2008 10:32 AM

"Much as I loved the video, it was an unfair
question from Ron Paul."

Yeah, the video would have been more effective if it hadn't come from the gold standard guy.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 10:46 AM

The more McCain stalks around accusing Obama of lacking specifics, being basically just a charismatic airhead, the lower the bar gets for him. So when Obama turns the specifics spigot on, everyone will be even more amazed.

Well put. Of course, Obama actually is really smart and well-versed in policy, unlike Bush.

This is an example of why I don't think McCain is such a great candidate. There's no way a smart Republican adviser would tell him to do something like this. A 72 year-old man of average intelligence debating positions he barely believes himself against a 46 year-old former Harvard Law Editor who takes positions that have meticulously researched by his first-rate policy team...who do you think's going to win that one? Seriously.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 14, 2008 12:10 PM

That's his whole Social Security proposal? Oh, brother.

Posted by 4jkb4ia | February 14, 2008 12:25 PM

Here's Obama's Foreign Policy "details":

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING

5. In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

* Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Ok - not too shabby - except for the bit about keeping troops in Iraq to fight "Al Qaeda" while at the same time having "no permanent bases". Where do the troops sleep? In tents? But the idea of Al Qaeda building a base in Iraq is less likely anyway, so maybe that won't be a real issue.

* Press Iraq's leaders to reconcile: The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Ok - no problem there - especially if he tries to really engage the Sunni insurgency and al-Sadr. Of course, they'll probably ignore him and do it themselves, but it's nice that he might try.

* Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.

OK - although how he's gonna get Saudi Arabia and Iran to "stop meddling" is questionable.

* Humanitarian Initiative: Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis – two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

No problem there.

Iran

* The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons,

Based on what evidence? This is where Obama goes off the rails.

supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region,

Again, based on what evidence? That it supports militias in Iraq may be beyond question, but is that our problem? Also, its support for Hizballah and Hamas does not amount to "terrorism" - those organizations are national resistance movements, not "terrorists" in the same sense as Al Qaeda. Many of the incidents blamed on Hizballah outside of Lebanon are based on questionable evidence.

and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust.

First, its leaders have not "threatened Israel". That canard has been laid to rest repeatedly. Secondly whether Iran's President has "denied the Holocaust" is also both questionable and irrelevant to Iran's position in the region.

But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

* Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

Okay - but if the diplomacy is based on the wrong premises I pointed out above, it's going to go nowhere and leave the US with the same options - give in or bomb Iran.

As Don Rickles would say, "What, that's better?"

* Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, and cannot abandon its nuclear energy program, including enrichment. This is a fact. Therefore Obama's "diplomacy" will fail. This is not the way to "make progress."

The best way is to engage Iran, recognize its position in the region, give it security guarantees against regime change or Israeli attack, make intelligent moves to resolve the Palestinian situation, and assist Iran in achieving nuclear energy independence while at the same time requiring Iran to be fully open in its program.

* Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

This is why he's at the bottom of the Haaretz poll
of US candidates favored by Israelis. The Zionists don't want "two states", they want the Palestinians forced out into Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.

* Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

That would be nice - but then he's going to have to expose those people on Sibel Edmonds list who are working to thwart that goal - meaning "senior US elected officials".

Good luck.

* Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.

Since North Korea didn't break the rules until the US screwed them out of their Agreed Framework, and Iran has never broken the rules (except in a minor way), the examples aren't particularly persuasive.

The real question is: what about Israel's nuclear arsenal?

What about India's? What about Pakistan's?

* Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

Again, what about Israel, India, and Pakistan?

* Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

Sorry, we have far more than enough troops, as long we don't go looking for more military adventurism. This is just a sop of the military who might otherwise vote for McCain.

* New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.

* Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Whatever. What about modifying the Rules of Engagement so we don't kill so many civilians? What about changing the focus of the military so it isn't based on WWII and the Soviet threat?

* Consultative Group: Obama will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.

Big deal - they're all members of the "War Party" anyway.

* Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.

OK.

* Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring his national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. He will personally deliver occasional fireside chats via webcast.

Ok - but it sounds like more "kumbaya" stuff with no real impact on US foreign policy development.

On Israel

* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

"our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel"?

Why? How about our first and incontrovertible commitment being to the security of the US by way of foreign policy in the Middle East?

* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

In other words, he supports an Israel planned attack on Lebanon which was planned for months before the Israeli soldier kidnapping for Israel's own reasons. He supports the use of Israeli cluster bombs on civilians in southern Lebanon. He supports Israel's numerous violations of the truce line by Israeli aircraft both before and after the 2006 war, He supports the indefinite detentions of Lebanese citizens in Israeli jails.

In short, he panders to AIPAC here.

* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

In short, he supports Israeli militarism at the cost of US security. He supports giving Israel more foreign aid than any other country, mostly military aid and military technology, which is then sold by Israel to other countries, including China and North Korea.

So there's Obama's "details". Read 'em and weep.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 6:59 PM

Great work, Hack! Screwed up one goddamn close blockquote!

Sorry, guys! Try to read it anyway.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 7:03 PM

Um, Obama was never a "law professor." He was an adjunct lecturer who never published anything. You guys are familiar with academia, right? You know there's a difference?

Posted by JD | February 14, 2008 10:30 PM