John McCain is a lying sack of shit

[Liberal]

From the NY Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/the-early-word-mccains-foreign-trip/):

Mr. McCain had promised before the trip that he would not publicly criticize Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on foreign soil, saying political partisanship ended at the water’s edge. But his pledge did not include a session with reporters on his campaign plane en route to Colombia, he called Mr. Obama “a protectionist” and cast him as ignorant about economic forces in the United States.So, apparently his pledge didn't count unless his shoes were touching dirt.

But wait!

In an interview airing on NBC News tonight, McCain spoke from Mexico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/An_attack_on_foreign_soil_.html):

Asked by Wallace if he could trust Obama's word, McCain said:

"He promised and pledged that he would sit down with me on campaign financing, and he also pledged to take public financing in writing and verbally many times," McCain said. "Well, if someone reverses on a position like that, then obviously — then the question comes up — can you trust their word?"Apparently, since there was flooring between his shoes and the dirt, his pledge didn't count then either.

What a craptacular irony — that this war-addled bumpkin would accuse Obama of being untrustworthy while in the act of breaking his own pledge. Only the most disingenuos idiot would even attempt to defend the hoary old fart, especially in this instance. Voting for him would be like voting for Bush's senile future self. If it weren't for Joe Lieberman propping him up and whispering in his ear, McCain wouldn't even know what fucking day it is. God, what a shit stain. No wonder he's so attractive to e-mail spammers and fat white bigots.

[Captain Amazing]

So, you're saying that Senator McCain can't count on your vote this fall?

[Lightnin']

I honestly don't understand how anyone can want to vote for McCain... or how they can keep explaining away his actions without thinking, "This is the best we could do?"

[Really Not All That Bright]

Lib, an honest question: are you voting for Obama?

ETA: Yes, I'm serious.

[Weirddave]

Lib, an honest question: are you voting for Obama?

ETA: Yes, I'm serious.
Voting for him? Hell, he's down on his hands and knees, willing to swear that Jackson was the best president the US has ever had if only Obama will consent to dick slap him in the face with his mighty penis. Lib will vote for Obama a dozen times, even if they only pay him for half that many.

[magellan01]

Lib, an honest question: are you voting for Obama?

Never has there been a better match between a post and the poster's name. :D

[Liberal]

Lib, an honest question: are you voting for Obama?I will continue to evaluate him as critically and honestly as I have to date, but unless something changes drastically, yes I indend to vote for him. I did vote for him in the primary.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Voting for him? Hell, he's down on his hands and knees, willing to swear that Jackson was the best president the US has ever had if only Obama will consent to dick slap him in the face with his mighty penis. Lib will vote for Obama a dozen times, even if they only pay him for half that many.
Given his propensity for satire, parody, and occasionally probably outright falsification, what Lib says and what Lib means coincide infrequently at best.

Besides, I would have presumed that Obama's voting record is anathema to Lib's worldview - or at least pretty far off. His MMV, of course.

ETA: Thanks, Lib.

Odd question #2: Why? Because he's the anti-Bush? Or because you genuinely agree with his platform?

[Liberal]

I honestly don't understand how anyone can want to vote for McCain... or how they can keep explaining away his actions without thinking, "This is the best we could do?"It is truly a mystery — especially when there are people like John Mace, Shodan, and Mr. Moto who defend him blindly no matter what he does.

[Liberal]

Given his propensity for satire, parody, and occasionally probably outright falsification, what Lib says and what Lib means coincide infrequently at best.I think you meant "fabrication", unless your intention was to compliment me.

Besides, I would have presumed that Obama's voting record is anathema to Lib's worldview - or at least pretty far off.You should visit his website, where you will learn that he is a free-marketer and a supporter of civil liberties.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think you meant "fabrication", unless your intention was to compliment me.
Actually, falsification works too - it means "alteration with the intent to mislead" as well as "to disprove". Fabrication would have been less ambiguous, I'll grant. Perhaps I'm taking a page out of your book. :D

I hadn't thought of Obama in that way; in any case, I thought you'd be more concerned with his domestic economic policy. Also, Clinton was a free-market civil libertarian* too, but you hated him, didn't you? :confused:

*as Presidents go

[Liberal]

I have stated before my admiration of Bill Clinton. It is Hillary Clinton that I hate. But regarding Obama's domestic economic policy, he is cutting taxes for some 90% of Americans. I'm all for that.

[wring]

I honestly don't understand how anyone can want to vote for McCain... or how they can keep explaining away his actions without thinking, "This is the best we could do?"
My theory is that they're writing off this election, as a 'no possible win', and look to blaming everything bad that happens for the next 2 years (including economic woes that are tied to current trends) to Obama, and surge again in the midterm elections.

[John Mace]

It is truly a mystery — especially when there are people like John Mace, Shodan, and Mr. Moto who defend him blindly no matter what he does.
You know, I read your OP and was going to come in here and say: OK, I can finally agree with you on something.

Instead I'll say: Fuck you, you piece of shit. Have a wonderful Independence day!

[dropzone]

Lib, my old friend, as a Democrat in a strongly Republican area I too have felt the sheer glee that comes when a candidate with whom I can find common ground actually has a chance of winning. I know you are as giddy as a schoolgirl but starting one or two threads a day to crow about the virtues of Obama is wearing thin on the rest of us, even those of us who support him. Do you think you can maybe take your man-crush to Facebook? :D

[The Understander]

You know, I read your OP and was going to come in here and say: OK, I can finally agree with you on something.

Instead I'll say: Fuck you, you piece of shit. Have a wonderful Independence day!

You still agree about the argument itself, that McCain is indeed a lying sack of shit, yes?

If so, have a wonderful Independence Day. If not... well, have one anyway but you're wrong!

Now, since this election is about trust, per the dominant commentary about Obama declining to opt out of public financing, let us see how much coverage this broken promise receives in the MSM and the blogosphere.

(hmmm... I think I have the makings of a Game Room post right there... *ponder*)

[thirdwarning]

I will continue to evaluate him as critically and honestly as I have to date, ...

I think we can take this as an unqualified yes.

[ivylass]

I honestly don't understand how anyone can want to vote for McCain... or how they can keep explaining away his actions without thinking, "This is the best we could do?"

Let me put it this way...I have deep philosophical differences with Obama, so I cannot vote for him.

McCain is a disappointing choice. I voted for Huckabee in the primary. Unless McCain comes up with a strong VP, I'm seriously thinking about skipping the presidential vote section on the ballot.

In other words, yes, I am chagrined that "this is the best we can do."

[An Arky]

My theory is that they're writing off this election, as a 'no possible win', and look to blaming everything bad that happens for the next 2 years (including economic woes that are tied to current trends) to Obama, and surge again in the midterm elections.

I agree...I think McCain is like Dole in '96...a senator on his way out/sacrificial goat.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

George Will had an interesting column in Newsweek last week. It discussed his impression of a Libertarian streak in Obama. It considered an interesting philosophy he called "Nudging" (or something like that). It seems nudging is a means of affecting/shaping behavior that is somewhere between Anarchy (pretty much my view of extreme Libertarianism) and complete State regularization and control over everything from prostitution to what church you can attend.

The idea of the "nudge" is to make it more likely for people to choose behaviors that will benefit themselves and or society without mandating by rules or laws that they do so. He gives the example of displaying fruits and vegetables at eye-level in school cafeterias and putting desserts maybe on a higher shelf or even in a separate line instead of banning desserts outright. Students still have every freedom to choose their lunch items but are "nudged" toward healthier eating (like fast-food advertising in reverse!)

Another example deals with the severe shortage of organs available for transplant. He suggests that when people get driver's licenses the default position of whether to donate organs or not is YES instead of NO. That way if people really don't care one way or the other about donating their organs, or they are just too lazy or forgetful to fill out that portion of the application they will thereby give their consent for organ donation. BUT if they do NOT want to donate their organs they still have the choice to decline.

Very sensible stuff and the sort of "third-way" thinking we need to accommodate people of different political philosophies but at the same time making it easier for and more likely that people make (objectively) better decisions.

IOW-- you'd still have the choice to be a stupid git if you wanted to, but it wouldn't be quite as easy as it is now.


Oh--- here's a link (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142638) to the online story.

[Liberal]

Speaking of foreign soil, by the way, it's especially disconcerting that McCain seized on the hostage rescue as an opportunity to score political points. His surrogate, Joe Lieberman, called the coincidence of the event "fortuitous", and said that it showed how much the Colombian president trusts McCain — and him too, of course. No mention of whether the Colombian president trusted Lindsay Graham, who also was along for the ride.

[Liberal]

Now, since this election is about trust, per the dominant commentary about Obama declining to opt out of public financing, let us see how much coverage this broken promise receives in the MSM and the blogosphere. There was also precious little coverage of McCain's own weasly attempt to back out of public financing in February. It failed only because he had tied a bank loan to public funds, and was advised that he could not forfeit that collateral.

My theory is that they're writing off this election, as a 'no possible win', and look to blaming everything bad that happens for the next 2 years (including economic woes that are tied to current trends) to Obama, and surge again in the midterm elections.Except that McCain has just promoted Steve Schmidt to head his operations. Schmidt is a longtime Karl Rove operative. (Here's a cite (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/barack-obama/20791/mccain-shakes-up-campaign-staff-greater-karl-rove-influence/) for that claim for people who don't watch the news.)

[Liberal]

Oh--- here's a link (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142638) to the online story.That was interesting. Thanks!

[wring]

Except that McCain has just promoted Steve Schmidt to head his operations. Schmidt is a longtime Karl Rove operative. (Here's a cite (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/barack-obama/20791/mccain-shakes-up-campaign-staff-greater-karl-rove-influence/) for that claim for people who don't watch the news.)
I had seen that. Doesn't change my theory. They'll play it out, but I don't think they expect to win. Watch how much $$ he raises. that'll be quite telling, I think. (forgot to add to my prior post that in addition to blaming everything bad that happens on Obama, they'll claim credit for anything good that happens in the next 2 years as well - 'it was our policies in place that led to this good thing', standard stufff, really).

[Cisco]

I wonder if Liberal will get an edict similar to Reeder's issued to him; no more Obama/McCain threads, which will of course lead to his banning.

Sad, really. Lib, I don't always agree with you but you've been one of the posters I've respected most over the years. Lay off this shit. It's very unbecoming of you.

There (2, in particular) posters here that I can think of whose intelligence pales in comparison to yours, and I expect the Obama worship out of them. You, (and DtC), I'm disappointed in.

[BrainGlutton]

George Will had an interesting column in Newsweek last week. It discussed his impression of a Libertarian streak in Obama. It considered an interesting philosophy he called "Nudging" (or something like that). It seems nudging is a means of affecting/shaping behavior that is somewhere between Anarchy (pretty much my view of extreme Libertarianism) and complete State regularization and control over everything from prostitution to what church you can attend.

Say no more! Know what I mean? ;)

[Liberal]

I wonder if Liberal will get an edict similar to Reeder's issued to him; no more Obama/McCain threads, which will of course lead to his banning.

Sad, really. Lib, I don't always agree with you but you've been one of the posters I've respected most over the years. Lay off this shit. It's very unbecoming of you.

There (2, in particular) posters here that I can think of whose intelligence pales in comparison to yours, and I expect the Obama worship out of them. You, (and DtC), I'm disappointed in.I honestly don't understand that sort of complaint — for a number of reasons. It is only very lately that I've become interested in the election, and that is because the closest thing to a classical liberal since Goldwater is running. I have a nine-year history here, and along the way I've heard that I start too many threads on libertarianism, too many threads on philosophy, too many threads on modal logic, too many threads on God, and now too many threads on Obama and McCain. Have you looked at threads I've started in MPSIMS, GQ, IMHO, and CS? None of them are about any of that. Plus, Brainglutton has more political threads in GD than I have. And other people have them there, too. Finally, why should you care what threads I start or what they're about? Why would your respect for me hinge on what I want to discuss? I don't know how to please people who want me to be certain ways; I've tried before, and it's a waste of time. What you hate, someone else will like, and vice-versa. If you respect me, I'm glad; but if you don't, I can't help it. I am who I am, and that's that.

[E. Thorp]

Now, since this election is about trust...Says who?

[Cisco]

It's not just the volume of the threads; obviously if you were starting 12 threads a day about cookies I wouldn't give a shit. It's more the rabid adulation of Obama combined with the borderline irrational hatred for everything McCain says. I'm waiting for McCain to say something, get pitted for it, and then Obama comes out in agreement with him the next day - or has that already happened? I mean . . . nothing in your OP sounded that bad to me at all. And I bet almost everyone here took the opposite stance on this issue when the Dixie Chicks were criticized for making remarks "on foreign soil."

[Fish]

Speaking of foreign soil, by the way, it's especially disconcerting that McCain seized on the hostage rescue as an opportunity to score political points. His surrogate, Joe Lieberman...
Is there a better word than "surrogate?" Or is that the appropriate and accurate term?

A recent Great Debate thread hinged upon an article calling General Wesley Clark a "surrogate" of Obama, and I conveyed my dismay at the use of that word when it was obviously an attempt to smear Senator Obama with the words of a supporter.

In the interests of fair play, I ask: is the word "surrogate" the correct one?

[Lightnin']

And I bet almost everyone here took the opposite stance on this issue when the Dixie Chicks were criticized for making remarks "on foreign soil."

You know, personally, I don't care what McCain says about Obama, or where he says it. I just can't stand the hypocrisy of the situation.

[Squink]

Is there a better word than "surrogate?"Poodle.

[Boyo Jim]

...In other words, yes, I am chagrined that "this is the best we can do."

Oh, were you happy about Bush? I remember some of my Republican friends shamefacedly saying the same thing in 2000, before they went out and voted for him. Even at the time, before we saw what a catastrophe he would be, it was clear to see he couldn't even make it through a speech without sounding like one of Jerry's Kids. McCain is a MUCH stronger candidate than Bush ever was -- not that I have any plans to vote for him.

[Liberal]

In the interests of fair play, I ask: is the word "surrogate" the correct one?It's the word talking heads use, and so I use it too for lack of anything better. But it does mean specifically someone with an official or longtime association with the campaign. Take a look at McCain's appearances, and see how many times you see Lieberman. Then take a look at Obama's appearances, and see how many times you see Clark. That will be umpteen versus zero. (Clark, in fact, was a Hillary supporter until she conceded.)

And I bet almost everyone here took the opposite stance on this issue when the Dixie Chicks were criticized for making remarks "on foreign soil."That's probably true, but there is a longstanding principle in American political campaigns that they "end at the waters edge", meaning they are not carried out in foreign countries. The Dixie Chicks weren't running for anything, so there should have been no expectation with regard to them.

[andros]

And I bet almost everyone here took the opposite stance on this issue when the Dixie Chicks were criticized for making remarks "on foreign soil."

Please provide a cite showing that the Dixie Chicks promised not to criticize the President.
.

[Autolycus]

This thread makes my eyeballs vomit the tears of unborn puppies.

Is it thread-shitting when the thread is already so full of shit that the poopsmith called and he wanted his poop back?

(yeah yeah yeah... don't have to read the thread... I just can't help myself. Every time I see a political thread I think "wow, dopers sure are smart, maybe I'll be privy to some enlightened discourse. Oh wait, no, fuck me.)

[42fish]

(yeah yeah yeah... don't have to read the thread... I just can't help myself. Every time I see a political thread I think "wow, dopers sure are smart, maybe I'll be privy to some enlightened discourse. Oh wait, no, fuck me.)

You honestly thought a pit thread with 'lying sack of shit' in the title would constitute enlightened discourse?

[Autolycus]

You honestly thought a pit thread with 'lying sack of shit' in the title would constitute enlightened discourse?

I've seen many a vulgar pit thread that's spurred interesting discussion. Then again, on the whole I also tend to be naive and unrealistically optimistic.

[Cisco]

That's probably true, but there is a longstanding principle in American political campaigns that they "end at the waters edge", meaning they are not carried out in foreign countries. The Dixie Chicks weren't running for anything, so there should have been no expectation with regard to them.
You know, I'm really not seeing the difference. And I'm sure you could almost fit everything I've never heard into the grand canyon, but just for the record, I've never heard that.
Please provide a cite showing that the Dixie Chicks promised not to criticize the President.
yawn. :rolleyes:. If you're going to play like that, please provide a cite of you criticizing every political candidate ever.

[andros]

yawn. :rolleyes:. If you're going to play like that, please provide a cite of you criticizing every political candidate ever.

Wow. Um. OK. Guess I missed something.

Alls I was suggesting is that:

A) taking McCain to task for saying he wouldn't criticize Obama and then doing it anyway, and

B) taking the Dixie Chicks to task to criticizing the President,

are not really comparable. That is, it ain't the criticism, it's the saying he wasn't gunna criticize. Which they didn't.

Right?
.

[Knorf]

I'm actually a bit psyched that Liberal is so gung-ho in his enthusiasm for Obama. Liberal does not gives his support to a candidate lightly or easily, and he has been entirely consistent about his positions in the presidential campaign from the beginning.

And I agree with his OP, entirely. If I were GOP, I'd be pretty darn disappointed in the aging wreck of candidate the Repubs have this year.

However, can't we roll these little attacks into the "Fork McCain" thread? Or something like it?

Also, John Mace doesn't deserve to be lumped into the McCain "GOP über alles" dittohead collection. His opinions are far more thoughtful and nuanced than the others on the list.

[Thudlow Boink]

Wait—a politican did something he said he wouldn't do? :eek:

I am so disillusioned.

[Sinaijon]

I always thought the 'No politics on foreign soil' meant that one politician shouldn't badmouth another to the foreigners. IE, America should present a unified front, politically, to the rest of the world. Which is a little outdated, since everything and anything is immediately blasted world wide via the Internet.

When talking to American reports via phone, email, etc, I don't really see how it's relevant where you are at.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd guess the first is what McCain was talking about when he made his pledge.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

So this is what it's like when somebody gets religion. Endless proselytizing, rabid dedication, unwavering faith that they are right and everybody else is wrong...I'd never witnessed it firsthand, not like this. Hell, anti-smokers aren't even this zealous.

Get a grip, Lib.

[cckerberos]

I always thought the 'No politics on foreign soil' meant that one politician shouldn't badmouth another to the foreigners. IE, America should present a unified front, politically, to the rest of the world. Which is a little outdated, since everything and anything is immediately blasted world wide via the Internet.

When talking to American reports via phone, email, etc, I don't really see how it's relevant where you are at.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd guess the first is what McCain was talking about when he made his pledge.
That's the way I read it as well.

[Starving Artist]

I have stated before my admiration of Bill Clinton.But Lib (and you know you're one of my favorites around here even though I often disagree with things you post), Bill is a lying sack of shit many orders of magnitude above McCain.

I'm :confused: !

[Steve MB]

You know, I'm really not seeing the difference.
Your dead neurons are not my problem.

[Cisco]

Your dead neurons are not my problem.
Who the fuck are you? Uncork your head from your ass and read Sinaijon's post for a clearer explanation if you don't want to continue looking like a dumbass. Or then again, don't. Your douchey comments are not my problem.

[Squink]

McCain, in Mexico, faults Obama on trade (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080703/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_mexico_dc_1)

[The Understander]

Says who?

The Matlock fanboi, of course. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aMRbGWMknFKs&refer=home)

[Oy!]

I just want to add, Liberal, that while I strongly support Obama and even more strongly do not support McCain in this election, I have noticed that you've gone a tad overboard on the threads, and I see how that might squick a few people out.

Oh, and John Mace is a guy who really likes to argue and generally takes centrist devil's advocate position on whatever question is being debated. While he appears to certainly be considerably to my right, he is by no means a Shodan, Mr. Moto, Starving Artist, Clothahump, or Weird Dave (or others who just aren't coming to mind at the moment). He strikes me more as someone who would like to be the tomndebb of politics on the board, trying to present a nuanced and balanced position, as Knorf said. Again, for my taste he leans a bit too far to the right, and I suspect he sometimes takes the fun of devil's advocacy a little further than his actual opinions would take him, although I certainly could be wrong. But he is not a knee-jerker, or if he is, he is a right-centrist knee-jerker, not an extreme right knee-jerker. I'm not even certain for whom he intends to vote.

[ArizonaTeach]

McCain, in Mexico, faults Obama on trade (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080703/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_mexico_dc_1)I'm sorry, and there are valid reasons to be disturbed by McCain with this, but to say in Mexico, "I am disappointed at the suggestion that the United States should unilaterally reopen NAFTA," is not an out-of-bounds criticism of Obama in the least. He's talking about NAFTA, which is a subject important to the region in which he's speaking. Should he not talk about NAFTA at all? That article was terribly written.

[The Flying Dutchman]

From the NY Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/the-early-word-mccains-foreign-trip/):

Mr. McCain had promised before the trip that he would not publicly criticize Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on foreign soil, saying political partisanship ended at the water’s edge. But his pledge did not include a session with reporters on his campaign plane en route to Colombia, he called Mr. Obama “a protectionist” and cast him as ignorant about economic forces in the United States.So, apparently his pledge didn't count unless his shoes were touching dirt.

So what's the point ?????????

But wait!

In an interview airing on NBC News tonight, McCain spoke from Mexico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/An_attack_on_foreign_soil_.html):

You don't know that. The story was filed in Mexico but I can't find any evidence that the interview did not take place on a plane in the air.

But even if McCain failed to keep his pledge in these cases, I would still wonder how you could be so upset. There's probably going to be a lot more dubious flip flops and "clarificatioins" on both sides. Always has been and always will be.

[dropzone]

... too many threads on modal logic...Trust me, pal-o-mine, ONE thread on that is one too many, and I'm speaking as the uncrowned KING of modalities. I asked a friend to critique a story and learned that, within 1488 words, I had used "could" 23 times and "would" fifteen. She was so shocked and nauseated she didn't even get on me when was I stomping upon and raping the corpse of the passive voice.

[Sam Stone]

From the NY Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/the-early-word-mccains-foreign-trip/):

Mr. McCain had promised before the trip that he would not publicly criticize Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on foreign soil, saying political partisanship ended at the water’s edge. But his pledge did not include a session with reporters on his campaign plane en route to Colombia, he called Mr. Obama “a protectionist” and cast him as ignorant about economic forces in the United States.So, apparently his pledge didn't count unless his shoes were touching dirt.

But wait!

In an interview airing on NBC News tonight, McCain spoke from Mexico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/An_attack_on_foreign_soil_.html):

Asked by Wallace if he could trust Obama's word, McCain said:

"He promised and pledged that he would sit down with me on campaign financing, and he also pledged to take public financing in writing and verbally many times," McCain said. "Well, if someone reverses on a position like that, then obviously — then the question comes up — can you trust their word?"Apparently, since there was flooring between his shoes and the dirt, his pledge didn't count then either.

What a craptacular irony — that this war-addled bumpkin would accuse Obama of being untrustworthy while in the act of breaking his own pledge. Only the most disingenuos idiot would even attempt to defend the hoary old fart, especially in this instance. Voting for him would be like voting for Bush's senile future self. If it weren't for Joe Lieberman propping him up and whispering in his ear, McCain wouldn't even know what fucking day it is. God, what a shit stain. No wonder he's so attractive to e-mail spammers and fat white bigots.

Did McCain actually say anything against Obama in public? As I'm sure you know, the proscription against playing politics abroad means to foreign audiences. If McCain was speaking to American reporters from a plane, or by phone, or otherwise away from the Mexican people, then it really doesn't matter, and politicians of all stripes do this all the time.

What you're not supposed to do is give partisan political speeches in front of foreign audiences. Did McCain do that?

I just read the comments in the second link, and a commenter says this:

I saw this interview with O'DOnnell...she said she wanted to make sure people knew that he did NOT make these comments around or in the presence of any foreign leaders. His comments were made at the actual interview he was doing for MSNBC.

So... If the commenter is correct, it would appear that McCain did not utter these comments to the Mexican public or Mexican officials. So what's your damned problem? Are you saying that if McCain gives a phone interview to MSNBC, he can criticize Obama if he's sitting in a hotel room in the U.S., but not if he's sitting in a hotel room in Mexico? Or what?

[E-Sabbath]

Poodle.
My poodle is a principled beast, thank you, with an independent mind.


Also, this is the best expression of American Politics I can see, right here. Happy fourth, everyone!

[Measure for Measure]

A little context:

"Politics stops at the waters edge," used to actually mean something during the cold war. It was invoked often and occasionally even respected.

McCain understands its appeal among certain voters and was smart enough to use it. And he knew that when he performed an immediate 180, the media would not call him on it.

Kevin Drum believes that the rule is obsolete (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013739.php). Not sure I agree. ...the proscription against playing politics abroad means to foreign audiences. Wha? Let's look at the OP: Mr. McCain had promised before the trip that he would not publicly criticize Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on foreign soil, saying political partisanship ended at the water’s edge. Making such a promise may have been unwise, poorly planned, or simple preening. But that McCain went back on his word seems clear: he certainly criticized Obama in a public manner while in a foreign country.

[Sam Stone]

A little context:

"Politics stops at the waters edge," used to actually mean something during the cold war. It was invoked often and occasionally even respected.

McCain understands its appeal among certain voters and was smart enough to use it. And he knew that when he performed an immediate 180, the media would not call him on it.

Kevin Drum believes that the rule is obsolete (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013739.php). Not sure I agree. Wha? Let's look at the OP: Making such a promise may have been unwise, poorly planned, or simple preening. But that McCain went back on his word seems clear: he certainly criticized Obama in a public manner while in a foreign country.

You're reading that differently than I did. When you say you won't publicly criticize someone on foreign soil, I take that to mean you won't criticize someone to a foreign public. McCain did not do so. He made his comments to American reporters for American consumption. It's just not the same thing at all.

Bush criticizing Democrats in front of an Israeli crowd in Israel is publicly criticizing on foreign soil. McCain speaking to an American reporter by phone or in a private meeting in an airplane is not.

[Measure for Measure]

Headline from WAPO's blog: Politics Stops at Water's Edge, but Not Above It (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/politics_stops_at_waters_edge.html): "The moment Sen. John McCain touches down on foreign soil, he says, he will not criticize his Democratic rival for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama. In international airspace, though? Well, that's a different matter."

So McCain is thinks it's ok to attack Obama en route to Colombia, but mums the word once he touches down.

(Does anybody think this whole issue is kind of silly? I mean I can see forming a united front against the Soviet Union or even irrational jihadists but Colombia??? FARC may kidnap an American national now and then, but somehow this all seems overblown.)

Assuming that the rule does make sense though, I agree that Bush's violation was far more egregious.

Interestingly, there's precious little mention of the tight lobbying ties (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/01/mccain-heads-to-colombia-where-his-top-strategist-has-lobbying-ties/) one of his aides has for Colombia oil/gas interests -- this in a country where deals are cut among armed groups and big businessman as a manner of course. Indeed, this WAPO head scratcher (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/mccain_travels_south_searching.html?hpid=topnews) wonders why oh why would McCain even visit such a country during the campaign, without even alluding to a rather obvious explanation.

No, this isn't politics stopping at the water's edge. It's an old-fashioned news blackout.

[Measure for Measure]

...without alluding to a rather obvious explanation. That was a poor choice of words, as I don't have special knowledge of the McCain campaign's internal workings.

McCain reports that he wanted to talk to President Uribe about trade and energy concerns. Among his aides, Charlie Black earned $1.6 million as a lobbyist for Occidental Petroleum in Colombia, and fundraiser Peter Madigan also earned dinero as a Colombian-oriented lobbyist. Surely such facts might provide a little context to the trip, no?

[Sam Stone]

Headline from WAPO's blog: Politics Stops at Water's Edge, but Not Above It (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/politics_stops_at_waters_edge.html): "The moment Sen. John McCain touches down on foreign soil, he says, he will not criticize his Democratic rival for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama. In international airspace, though? Well, that's a different matter."

So McCain is thinks it's ok to attack Obama en route to Colombia, but mums the word once he touches down.

(Does anybody think this whole issue is kind of silly? I mean I can see forming a united front against the Soviet Union or even irrational jihadists but Colombia??? FARC may kidnap an American national now and then, but somehow this all seems overblown.)

Assuming that the rule does make sense though, I agree that Bush's violation was far more egregious.

Interestingly, there's precious little mention of the tight lobbying ties (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/01/mccain-heads-to-colombia-where-his-top-strategist-has-lobbying-ties/) one of his aides has for Colombia oil/gas interests -- this in a country where deals are cut among armed groups and big businessman as a manner of course. Indeed, this WAPO head scratcher (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/mccain_travels_south_searching.html?hpid=topnews) wonders why oh why would McCain even visit such a country during the campaign, without even alluding to a rather obvious explanation.

No, this isn't politics stopping at the water's edge. It's an old-fashioned news blackout.

Again, I think this is manufactured outrage. The prohibition against taking partisan politics abroad has always been taken to mean you shouldn't make partisan statements in front of a foreign audience (i.e. airing your dirty laundry with others). It has never meant, for example, that a president can't give an interview to an American newspaper reporter while sitting in Air Force One, even if it's sitting on the runway in Moscow. Nor has it ever meant that a politician couldn't make partisan comments in a phone interview with an American journalist while sitting in a hotel room in Beijing. It's all about giving speeches to foreign audiences.

This whole thing is simply ridiculous.

[Squink]

Again, I think this is manufactured outrage.
...
This whole thing is simply ridiculous.Sauce for the goose:
White House Criticizes Pelosi's Syria Trip (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2995828&page=1%22)
Nancy Pelosi's Syria Visit Sparks Criticism For Bungled Shuttle Diplomacy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264334,00.html)

If Republicans want to make up the rules, let them live by the rules.

[RickJay]

Sauce for the goose:
White House Criticizes Pelosi's Syria Trip (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2995828&page=1%22)
Nancy Pelosi's Syria Visit Sparks Criticism For Bungled Shuttle Diplomacy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264334,00.html)

If Republicans want to make up the rules, let them live by the rules.
Those examples simply are not relevant to the subject at hand. In the first case, Pelosi is not being criticized for talking partisan shit abroad; she's being criticized for (allegedly) underminining the administration's diplomatic stance through actual action, by meeting with an unfriendly foreign government.

In the second case she is being criticized -with reason, it would seem - for diplomatic ineptitude on that trip.

Neither example is about Pelosi just engaging in partisan bickering abroad.

[Squink]

Those examples simply are not relevant to the subject at hand. Pelosi is not being criticized for talking partisan shit abroad; she's being criticized for (allegedly) underminining the administration's diplomatic stance through actual action, by meeting with an unfriendly foreign government.
You're wrong.

Nancy Pelosi, who has been redefining women’s roles in politics, is now also redefining the government.

Even during the darkest days of the Cold War, when Ronald Reagan and ‘Tip’ O’Neil were fighting tooth and toenail, Speaker O’Neil didn’t go traipsing off to Moscow to negotiate his own foreign policy. In those days politics ended at the waters edge. No more. Last week, Speaker Pelosi took partisan politics all the way to Damascus. http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/364/articleId/688/President-Pelosi.aspx

[Cisco]

Goddamn could this board be any more pathetically partisan? I wish some of you could see how ridiculous you look from an outside point of view.

Following political discussions on the SDMB reminds me of this conversation I had with a 350+lb native American co-worker once:

me: Are you Pima?
her: Ewww! NO! I'm Navajo! Pima are FAT!

It would've been funny if she was joking, just like a lot of the political acrobatics here would be funny, if you people were joking.

[Measure for Measure]

Ya, Cisco, but while this is among the lamest SDMB partisan threads ever (it turns on a distinction between what McCain said, what he meant, and whether he can tell the difference), you couldn't even come up with an egregious example. So it's not that bad around here, though I concede that a lot of conservatives appear to have fled for the hinterlands. That said the phrase, "Manufactured outrage" strikes me as embarrassingly apt.

Picking a nit/chatting with Sam: "The prohibition against taking partisan politics abroad has always been taken to mean you shouldn't make partisan statements in front of a foreign audience (i.e. airing your dirty laundry with others)."

Probably. It also was about having a united front against a foreign menace, like the Soviet Union. Googling tells me that the "Water's edge" phrase was coined by Senator Vandenberg (R) (sp?) who in the 1940s advocated vigorous debate regarding tactics at home while leaving the commies no doubt about America's ultimate goals. In GQ, I just posed the question, "Outside of the US does, "Partisanship stop at the water's edge (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=474502)?"

[Starving Artist]

...I concede that a lot of conservatives appear to have fled for the hinterlands. You are not alone in this delusion.

The fact of the matter, however, is that many of us conservatives, being a sensible and pragmatic lot, have simply grown tired of pissing in the wind of leftie bias that so thoroughly permeates this place.

Further, as elucidator himself has pointed out on occasion, we can begin to sound like a broken record as we argue time and time again against the same old erroneous and biased memes that are the fuel that drives this place. For your edification I'll list the main ones here:

1) Bush is EEEVIL!
2) Conservatives/Republicans are teh suxxor!
3) So are God-believers...stupid, too!
4) Whatever is wrong, anywhere in the world, was caused at some point by the U.S.!

Eventually, the conservative poster can come to feel: "WTF? Screw 'em! Let 'em believe this nonsense, I got better things to do with my time."

I probably don't post one-percent as much as I used to and this is the primary reason why.

[Boyo Jim]

...!
2) Conservatives/Republicans are teh suxxor!
3) So are God-believers...stupid, too!
4) Whatever is wrong, anywhere in the world, was caused at some point by the U.S.!....

3 out of 4 ain't bad, for a conservative. :p

[Really Not All That Bright]

And I bet almost everyone here took the opposite stance on this issue when the Dixie Chicks were criticized for making remarks "on foreign soil."
What office, exactly, were the Dixie Chicks running for?

[Taber]

Further, as elucidator himself has pointed out on occasion, we can begin to sound like a broken record as we argue time and time again against the same old erroneous and biased memes that are the fuel that drives this place. For your edification I'll list the main ones here:

1) Bush is EEEVIL!
2) Conservatives/Republicans are teh suxxor!
3) So are God-believers...stupid, too!
4) Whatever is wrong, anywhere in the world, was caused at some point by the U.S.!

Eventually, the conservative poster can come to feel: "WTF? Screw 'em! Let 'em believe this nonsense, I got better things to do with my time."


We certainly are lucky that our esteemed conservative brethren are able to rise above the petty strawmanning and well poisoning that us liberals are wont to engage in.

[Knorf]

And Starving Artist presents a textbook example of the "Straw Man Fallacy."

Well done.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Further, as elucidator himself has pointed out on occasion, we can begin to sound like a broken record as we argue time and time again against the same old erroneous and biased memes that are the fuel that drives this place. For your edification I'll list the main ones here:

1) Bush is EEEVIL!
2) Conservatives/Republicans are teh suxxor!
3) So are God-believers...stupid, too!
4) Whatever is wrong, anywhere in the world, was caused at some point by the U.S.!

Setting aside the misuse of the term "meme" (goddammit, it doesn't mean "an idea I think is dumb"!), and setting aside the temptation to call "cite?" on these obviously false claims, I'll ask you to be honest. When someone *does* say something vaguely similar to these claims, don't they catch a lot of shit from the board's leftists?

Daniel

[Shodan]

Setting aside the misuse of the term "meme" (goddammit, it doesn't mean "an idea I think is dumb"!),
A meme (pronounced /miːm/)[1] consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
and setting aside the temptation to call "cite?" on these obviously false claimsNone of these claims are false. You don't need a cite; they are too obviously true to make a request for a cite anything other than trolling. I'll ask you to be honest. When someone *does* say something vaguely similar to these claims, don't they catch a lot of shit from the board's leftists?

Daniel
Take an obvious example. There is a thread where leftists are rejoicing in the death of Jesse Helms. You posted to it, and you didn't say a single word in condemnation of it - you joined in the pile-on.

There are some honest leftists on the boards, but you apparently aren't one of them.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

...There are some honest leftists on the boards...
Ever have an attack of morbid curiosity? You want to ask, so you'll know, but you're pretty sure than when you do know, you'll wish you didn't?

[E-Sabbath]

I'll ask. I'm a conservative, anyhow. Who's a honest leftist, Shodan?

[Liberal]

Fir the recrod, I did apologize to John Mace.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'll ask. I'm a conservative, anyhow. Who's a honest leftist, Shodan?
Ooh! Ooh! Pick me!

[Oy!]

I just opened an IMHO thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9980356) asking who were honest conservatives and liberals in the eyes of the other viewpoint (ie, asking conservatives for honest liberals and liberals for honest conservatives). The question interested me.

[Cisco]

Ooh! Ooh! Pick me!
Pima are FAT!

[Really Not All That Bright]

Pima are FAT!
I'm Navajo.

[Cisco]

I'm Navajo.
Precisely my point.