Oh, he did, did he? Well then, let’s see a cite for McCain saying “he wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years”.
When you can’t find one feel free to admit you grossly mischaracterized what he did say and offer an apology.
It couldn’t be because it might depend on what transpires there, i.e., the state of the Iraqi government, the level of violence, who’s perpetrating the violence, etc. No, that couldn’t be it at all. And speaking of weaseling, something tells me we’ll be seeing a good example of that in three…two…one…
Come on, Dio. You know as well as I do that it’s one thing for him to say he’s willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years and another thing entirely to say he wants to stay there for a hundred years.
Why would he be “willing” to stay there if there was no violence? What would be the purpose? If he’s “willing” to stay when there’s no need, that’s called wanting to.
I don’t understand you’re objection. He tried to qualify himself by saying he would stay as long as there is no violence. He didn’t say how long he would stay if there is violence. That’s what was evasive.
“Grossly” mischaracterized his statement? C’mon…it was not exact but hardly a gross mischaracterization. Here’s a video of McCain making the statement in question where he says staying in Iraq “would be fine with me”.
It is weaselly because he then likens staying in Iraq to the US keeping a presence in Japan and South Korea. Both places where the local government wants us to remain and both places where our troops are not getting killed nor are they there as an occupying force. He makes the caveat that as long as our troops are not in harms way then this timeframe is fine but goes on to say it should be ok because it is a very volatile part of the world. Not to mention our troops ARE in harms way and there is no end in sight to that.
If Americans have a military presence there 50 years from now akin to us being in Japan fine. But today we have a war. Today we want to know how it will be ended. Note I am making no comment on how the war should be ended but I’d sure like to see someone lay out conditions that would see that happen and a plan to achieve those conditions. Not this open ended “war on terror” that really has no good definition. McCain is not providing any answers along those lines and is evasive on this count.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that no violence = no need.
I didn’t hear his comment and don’t know what he had in mind when he said it, but we’ve stayed many places long after there was no violence to speak of. South Korea, Japan and Germany are a few that come readily to mind.
OK, almost got it. If things go badly in Iraq, we *have *to stay. If we win, like McCain says we are, then we get to stay, like a prize. So, do we leave if things stay the same?
No, he doesn’t. He describes that as a condition for staying long-term, not as a description of the current state of our presence.
Gosh, McCain should have said something like this. Oh, wait, he did.
But this is a change to something people specifically acknowledge they DON’T WANT, at least as far as policy. I am astounded by this.
Well, I didn’t exactly say this, did I? My point is that whatever type of campaign I’d prefer, that is enormously less important to me than if the right guy gets elected, so long as there is nothing egregiously dishonest that occurs. I change the channel when I see a campaign ad I don’t like. It just doesn’t affect me the way it appears to affect some people. I mostly don’t care.
By the way, can we get anyone on the Obama side to admit that his statement about McCain wanting “100 more years of war in Iraq” was a misrepresentation of McCain’s position to score a political point? Just a quick experiment here in partisanship, to see how it affects people’s capacity to admit something blindingly obvious but contradictory to their vision.
No problem. Yes. It is a bit of political theater to take that statement as having meant he wants to have ongoing conflict there for 100 years.
It does show that he sees Iraq serving as a location for a long term military presence in the region and that he is fine with keeping large numbers of American troops there for “100 years” as long as the death rate is low. Bringing troops home, or for that matter having them available to redeploy elsewhere, is unimportant to him.
As to the rest of the points you have made …
“The right guy” has to be more than someone who espouses things on the checklist of dogma. Many now see that the GOP has not delivered on making government smaller, has not brought about fiscal responsibility, has not respected the importance of keeping the government out of our private business, and has mangled foreign policy and diminished our standing in the world. They may see that someone who says those things is not actually the right guy if this is what they actually deliver. They are disillusioned that given the chance their right guy drove us off the road, into a ditch, and broke an axle.
Process is also important. Some at least perceive that the Rovian political process, the inability to actually work together with give and take, is part of what is keeping us from fixing the axle and getting the car back on the road, part of what got us there even. Posturing that ends up promising more of the same is something that turns those who feel that way to the other side.
Obama for his part is not perfect (I never expected him to be and plan on frequently complaining during his administration :)) but he is very aware of that yearning for a government that can function more effectively. He is methodically showing that he will instead be willing to compromise in the interests of getting results that are good enough. Hence, he’ll weather the Left’s ire over his FISA repositioning and after some childish antics in the House with lights shut off (“I’m not listening”) and debating to yourself in the dark, Obama came out to say that he would give in on off-shore drilling as part of a compromise that created a good enough complete energy package. It is also why he usually does not punch below the belt and tries to counterpunch more than swing first.
His sales pitch to conservatives is that you’ve tried rigid dogma and look what you’ve got. I don’t really share all of your statements of faith but I’m willing to work with you. Maybe together we can at least get this country back on the road and then discuss where we can go that we can both live with.
And some find that message appealing.
I don’t know if you remember the recent tempest in a teapot when Obama had an op-ed in the NY Times, but the NYT rejected a piece that McCain submitted?
Obama presented his plan for Iraq and the region in his op-ed. The NYT rejected McCain’s piece because it didn’t present McCain’s ideas about Iraq and the Middle East. Instead, it just attacked Obama’s ideas.
IIRC, the NYT said criteria for victory in Iraq were the sort of thing they were looking for in a parallel McCain piece, but the campaign was unwilling to produce such a piece.
So the answer is, damned if we know.
Even the WaPo’s remarkable puff piece on McCain, “The Curious Mind of John McCain: Ambition and Emotion Color the Complex Intellect of the Candidate,” says:
And I think McCain’s quote is revealing: if you either win or you lose, there has to be a clear enemy where the result is binary: two opponents go in, and only one emerges victorious.
But who or what would our opponent, our enemy, be? Who or what would we win that clear triumph over? If McCain’s ever defined the problem, I’ve certainly missed it. But if you sit down and think about Iraq for more than a few seconds, it’s clear that Iraq’s really about order v. chaos - we’d like to see Iraq be a place where people don’t have to worry about being shot, blown up, or kidnapped as they go about their daily lives, where access to basics like food, clean water, and electricity can be assumed. There are obviously a lot of points on the continuum between order and chaos; there’ll be no moment when the last suicide bombers hand over their explosives in a surrender ceremony and we can declare victory.
And ultimately, order will depend on a political solution. If most Sunnis or most Sadrists feel that the government is excluding them from a meaningful role in governing, if political participation has little or no payoff, then they’ll go back to guns and bombs.
So the real question for us is: in what ways is our presence helping or hindering progress towards political reconciliation?
I’m a registered Dem with some conservative leanings. I have a conservative friend who is more of a libertarian who now says he’s not voting for either candidate. We get together about once every six weeks for beer, hot wings, and a political discussion. The last time he brought Obama’s blueprint for change from Obama’s website. He feels Obama’s approach leans toward socialism. I’m now reading the Blueprint for change with a highlighter.
I unerstand what Bricker is saying and it’s a big part of why I’ll be voting for Obama. In 2000 I watched the Gore/ Bush debates and I wasn’t deeply offended by what Bush had to say. I honestly thought he didn’t seem that bad. Then he got elected and turned out to be one of the worst presidents in history. A real lying horrorshow IMO. My conservative friend supported him at first but now admits he’s just awful.
We desperately need to steer our leaders toward actual honest discussion about the major issues and a more transparent governement. Although I don’t agree with Obama on certain issues I see him as a president who is willing to listen and give serious consideration to opposing views, a president who is sincerely interested in solving problems that affect all citizens in all social structures. I firmly believe that’s crucial first step.
The problem I have with McCain is that after my experience with Bush I see him as more of the same. I predict he will mellow his positions and make them sound appealing but I feel very strongly that I cannot trust him to follow through on anything and will instead be a repeat of the last eight years. Pursuing an agenda that doesn’t look out for the interests of most American citizens. I find it ironic that his ads are now saying, “don’t take a chance on Obama , it’s too risky” Holy Freakin Crap! Could anything be more risky than a repeat of the last eight years? If you want to be scared of something then be afraid of that.
I see a need for honest conservatives and liberals to work together and find the proper balance that moves us forward. For that to happen both parties have to change their standards and police themselves better. We the voting public have to take our role more seriously and make demands for financial and policy trnasparency. Any politician who won’t get behind that needs to go.
I understand what Stratocaster is saying but what good is a candidate spouting views you agree with if he isn’t sincere? It seems to me that many conservatives feel that Bush has betrayed them and the principles they support. I know I certainly feel that way. Because of that I can’t listen to McCain and think “Hey that sounds okay” because I just can’t trust what he says. He appears too much as more of the same dishonest BS.
I acknowledge that I have no guarentees about Obama. Of the two I am willing to take the chance with him because he has been more consistant in demonstrating the principles he says he supports. I also am willing to watch his presidency and make sure my local leaders and Washington knows when I’m not happy with their direction.
I can’t imagine that Obama’s social programs and the other changes he proposes will hurt us that badly. If we work to establish a more transparent government that is held to higher standards when it comes to honest communication we can tweak or disolve those programs as we go.
IMO negative ads that are too dishonest reflect on the kind of honesty we can expect from the candidate. If I catch a car salesman blatently lying to me to misrepresent his product or his competitors product I don’t respect that or accept it as “that’s how they are” I am likley to not do business with him.
I predict we’ll see more polls that show the race is close and that concerns me. I’m not convinced there were no dishonest shenanigans in Florida and Ohio in the last two elections. I’m concerned that polls creating a false imprssion that it’s close will create an opportunity for more of that. I think we need to come out overwelmingly for Obama so there are no question marks. Even if you are a concervative let’s take a clear step away from the kind of dishonest BS we’ve been subjected to in the past eight years.
So, more debates would be a good thing, no?
McCain has a long record. He has been known to be—until Obama came on the scene and people want to shower him with the praise that McCain has actually earned—an honest man and an independent thinker. To cast him in the same light as Bush, or see him as a part of that pathetic presidency seems grossly unfair IMO.
McCain has proven a willingness to reach across the aisle. Even at great risk to the majority of republicans. His partnering with Kennedy on the Immigration Light bill is proof of that.
Again, I think you are being very unfair. McCain does not equal Bush.
Like what? Since he became a credible nominee he has changed positions to suit the mood. I was greatly disappointed in his change on pubic financing of his election bid. It might be the practical thing to do, but he ceded the moral high ground that he had a chance of claiming. His stance on the surge is similarly “politics as usual”. Not much of a change there.
Like Obama mischaracterizing MCain’s “100 years remark”?
I’ve got GREAT NEWS for you: Bush isn’t running. But nice try with the pathetic by association. One would think that if Obamaiacs are so confident about there golden boy, they’d be more than willing to measure him up to McCain.
The problem everybody’s having – including Bricker in his OP re the ads – is that McCain isn’t willing to measure McCain up to Obama.
And THIS is the main reason why, every time I see a discussion of Obama vs McCain, I lean more and more towards Obama.
“Obamaniacs”. THAT’S the best you can do? THAT’S the kind of politics you actually want?
No thanks. We’ve seen the effects divisive “us or them” politics can have on our country.
Actually, here I’m going to disagree. While many Obama supporters are nuanced and thoughtful here on the SDMB, there are a not-inconsiderable minority that do not seem reasoned in their support.
It’s funny… I don’t see it as much on this forum as I do on others, but I’ve seen more namecalling from McCain voters than I have from Obama voters. Obamaniacs, Obamatrons, Obamabots, Obamonicas… well, I’ve seen a lot. I can’t think of a single derogatory name used for McCain voters, off the top of my head.
McCainaanites shows up occasionally.
Had you said all of this in 2000, I might have agreed. I wouldn’t have voted for McCain, because unlike you, I happen to disagree with most of his then positions (let alone his current ones), but I certainly would have been happier with him than GWB. But McCain, after 2004 especially, has pretty much toed his party line and largely kowtowed to the extreme right, to the point of now being against a bill that he himself sponsored. He’s reversed himself on Bush’s tax cuts, on off-shore drilling, on torture, etc. I hope that if he were elected, he would revert to what at least back then seemed to be the real McCain, but let’s face it: he’d be looking towards re-election during his first four years. It probably wouldn’t be until his second term that the real (assuming the 2000 McCain was the real McCain) could come out.
As far as wanting to stay for 100 years, the point is that McCain wants to place permanent military bases in Iraq (like in Germany, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan), which it would appear Iraq doesn’t want. Obama doesn’t appear to want this. That seems to me to be the big difference. I don’t know why either candidate isn’t just coming out and saying it that simply. The way the wind seems to be blowing, either candidate will withdraw the majority of troops in Iraq in about the same time frame, leaving a small force behind, and I think we’ll need to have a larger force stationed more or less permanently somewhere in the Mid East to put out fires whenever and wherever they occur. The whole area is a powder keg. As I said in a different thread, I’d kind of like to see that permanent base stationed in a newly formed Palestinian State located on the West Bank, but since I know pretty close to nothing about miltitary, logistical, or foreign relations issues, that opinions may be worth about the paper it’s writte on.