One striking thing about John McCain's 20+ year career in the Senate, is that he's gotten an extraordinarily little amount done. One reason may be that, as Brendan Nyhan points out, he seems to have a curiously unsophisticated view of how to build coalitions. How to break the FISA deadlock? Well, "people that are patriotic Americans need to sit down together and work this out." How to achieve national reconciliation in Iraq? Simple, "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit.'"
« Lewis Flips | Main | Souled Out »
McCain: Friend or Foe of BS?
15 Feb 2008 09:30 am
Comments (27)
It's remarkable how unsubtle a politician that man is. Everything is good-patriotic-responsible versus bad-defeatist-self-interested. Taking advantage of that is probably the easiest way to beat him because he can be "forced" (through his own stupidity) into a position of having to criticize everyone in the electorate on something or other. He's going to find the domain of the patriotic awfully empty by the end of this campaign.
That said, it's very ... Obamaesque, no?
No. Not at all.
That said, it's very ... Obamaesque
Obamaesqe? I don't know about that, but it certainly is MATTHEWesqe.
After all, Matthew's foreign policy is, essentially, for everyone to sit down together and "work it out". In Matthew-world, after all, all we need to do is to sit down with the Iranians, or North Koreans, or whoever, and give them whatever they want, and everything will be worked out.
Friend.
Next question.
One striking thing about John McCain's 20+ year career in the Senate, is that he's gotten an extraordinarily little amount done. One reason may be that, as Brendan Nyhan points out, he seems to have a curiously unsophisticated view of how to build coalitions.
This, BTW, is a very odd thing to say about McCain, of all people. After all, one of the highest profile pieces of bi-partisan legislation produced in the last decade has McCain's name on it (along with a far-left liberal, Mr. Feingold). Obama doesn't have any legislation with his name on it together with a far right-winger.
If anything, McCain has been too much of a coalition builder. It almost cost him the nomination.
Al, Matthew had a piece earlier about how McCain-Feingold is the only piece of major legislation in McCain's belt, and he has virtually disowned it in the face of conservative outrage, so now he's got nothin'.
With regards to your blatant lie, it took very little time to come up with this:
WASHINGTON - Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) that will help keep weapons like shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles out of terrorists' hands has passed Congress and will soon be signed into law by the President.
Cue Al arguing that Lugar is no right-winger in 3... 2...
Or the coalition that helped pass McCain-Feingold was generated by Russ Feingold.
(We're all forgetting the bipartisan coalition that helped out Charley Keating. McCain was a dab hand with that.)
"Obama doesn't have any legislation with his name on it together with a far right-winger."
Coburn-Obama.
McCain is a grandstander. He clearly couldn't care less about the intricacies of the legislative process. Foreign policy is the only genuine area of expertise he's got, though of course he happens to be totally wrong in that area as well.
And who can forget this great triumph of the blogosphere?
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today announced the introduction of legislation that would publicly disclose all recipients of federal funding and financial assistance....
It passed too.
Obama has a whole bunch of detailed policy proposals, and a history of working on low-reward, work-intensive issues across party lines.
This is not Obamaesque; it's Perotvian.
After all, Matthew's foreign policy is, essentially, for everyone to sit down together and "work it out". In Matthew-world, after all, all we need to do is to sit down with the Iranians, or North Koreans, or whoever, and give them whatever they want, and everything will be worked out.
Al, don't forget to throw in that Obama "wants to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."
When are these idiots going to realize that they can't just lie their asses off and expect to persuade anyone in a forum like this, where people tend to be actually informed and reasonably intelligent. If you want to make those kinds of silly arguments, you're in the wrong venue.
With regards to your blatant lie, it took very little time to come up with this
You're right. I'm wrong. Obama has a couple pieces of irrelevant, minor legislation with his name on it. I bet he sponsored some legislation naming a post office too.
OTOH, McCain was the main force behind a bi-partisan piece of legislation that literally destroyed the First Amendment. McCain has been Mr. bi-partisan coalition, on behalf of big, awful things, not piddly-ass things like Obama.
You can suggest Obama's record on passing legislation as a US Senator is thin, and that's fine - he hasn't been there that long. However, the fact of the matter is that Clinton's is even thinner, despite the "35 years of experience" meme and having been in the US Senate longer.
As for McCain, there's no need to build coalitions when you refer to everyone as "my friend".
"OTOH, McCain was the main force behind a bi-partisan piece of legislation that literally destroyed the First Amendment. McCain has been Mr. bi-partisan coalition, on behalf of big, awful things, not piddly-ass things like Obama."
And don't forget how close McCain came to permanently expanding the American underclass/adding a new Democratic voting block last year with McCain-Kennedy.
Regardless of one's opinion of McCain, he has clearly been one of the most consequential Senators of the last decade. Not just in terms of legislation proposed or passed, but also in terms of his ability to influence national issues via his larger-than-normal soapbox. A few examples that come to mind: normalization of relations with Vietnam, reform of competitive mixed martial arts (from its original form with no gloves, no weight classes, etc.), the debate about water boarding, the debate about the surge in Iraq, etc.
In Matthew-world, after all, all we need to do is to sit down with the Iranians, or North Koreans, or whoever, and give them whatever they want, and everything will be worked out.
OTOH, McCain was the main force behind a bi-partisan piece of legislation that literally destroyed the First Amendment.
Troll.
reform of competitive mixed martial arts
And it keeps getting funnier and funnier ...
(The right-wingers here are either funnier or dumber than elsewhere on the web. I'm infected with Obama Optimism so I say "funnier".)
Al: "You're right. I'm wrong. Obama has a couple pieces of irrelevant, minor legislation with his name on it. I bet he sponsored some legislation naming a post office too."
Yeah, securing loose nuclear material! Making the world less vulnerable to a catastrophic terrorist attack is, at least in Al's world, irrelevant and minor.
Fred: "Regardless of one's opinion of McCain, he has clearly been one of the most consequential Senators of the last decade."
That's true, but so what? By that measure Obama has also been one of the most consequential Senators of the last decade simply by virtue of his "ability to influence national issues via his larger-than-normal soapbox."
I have no doubt John McCain has displayed great skill navigating the Sunday talk-show circuit and getting his name mentioned a lot in the papers. However, when you get down to it the guy simply doesn't have much to show for all his time in the Senate.
Yeah, securing loose nuclear material!
Um, no. Try again.
Um, yes.
"By that measure Obama has also been one of the most consequential Senators of the last decade simply by virtue of his "ability to influence national issues via his larger-than-normal soapbox."
Which issues has Obama influenced?
"One striking thing about John McCain's 20+ year career in the Senate, is that he's gotten an extraordinarily little amount done."
Compared to whom? Which Senators have accomplished more in the same time period? Other than Ted Kennedy, it's hard to think of someone who has been a more effective Senator than McCain.
Please try to ignore the paid shills. Thanks.
"McCain is a grandstander. He clearly couldn't care less about the intricacies of the legislative process. Foreign policy is the only genuine area of expertise he's got, though of course he happens to be totally wrong in that area as well.
Posted by Korha | February 15, 2008 10:03 AM"
For his first 10-15 years in the Senate, he was often seen as a joke by fellow Republicans who would often not show up to work, only once in a while write legislation and then when his lack of coalition-building skills led to his legislation's defeat, he would act like everyone else in the world (including fellow conservative Republicans) were just idiots.
"After all, Matthew's foreign policy is, essentially, for everyone to sit down together and "work it out". In Matthew-world, after all, all we need to do is to sit down with the Iranians, or North Koreans, or whoever, and give them whatever they want, and everything will be worked out.
Posted by Al | February 15, 2008 9:50 AM"
This strawman reminds me of how George Will accused Reagan of losing the Cold War by talking with Gorbachev in Iceland and rebuking the neocons. Then all of a sudden when the Berlin Wall fell, the right needed to have a big daddy narrative, so they convinced themselves that the Soviets quivered in their boots so much over fear of the big bad Reagan that they just pissed themselves away.
I really don't understand how the mis-characterization of Obama's willingness to talk to foreign leaders has had this much longevity.
Reagan talking to Gorbachev is a great example. Sometimes that works. Sometimes you have to say "Tear down this wall!", rather than not talk at all. Nixon went to China, remember?
Obama never said he would universally and unequivocally make it a policy to talk to every foreign leader no matter what. This is the straw man that people like O'Hanlon in the Wall Street Journal try to argue against. But it's not what he said. He only said that, if the situation called for it and he felt that we could accomplish a result beneficial to our interests, he would not rule out the idea of speaking to any foreign leader. It would of course be a case by case basis and limited to situations where we could potentially get what we want, certainly not a policy of "giving them whatever they want".
Being open to a hypothetical meeting if the situation called for it is just good, rational policy.
reform of competitive mixed martial arts (from its original form with no gloves, no weight classes, etc
Stupendously off-topic:
Studies have shown that martial contests w/o gloves are actually safer in the long-term, as the volume of head shots involved in, say, a boxing match, is dramatically higher than that in a MMA format, where blows heavy enough to rattle the brain are almost invariably KO's. The rate of pugilista dementia falls off greatly when 'the gloves are off.'
Comments closed February 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Right, and I think people are overestimating his supposed strength in a general election. He can't have lost in 2000 only because Karl Rove went negative on him. I don't think people see a whole lot there upon scrutiny. Which is why I'm praying Hillary "cold, dead hands" approach to the nomination doesn't pan out. I think she'd win in November and guarantee further corrosion of the public discourse. Not as bad overall as a McCain administration, which would continue to enable all the wingnut yahoos in Congress, but depressing as hell nonetheless.
Posted by Bill | February 15, 2008 9:41 AM