I really enjoyed Lyall pointing out the Op-Ed articles on patriotism from McCain and Obama yesterday. I think he was quite right to point out a major flaw in McCain’s statement that patriotism should come “before anything” but I don’t agree that without that flaw the editorial would have been perfect.
I really liked McCain’s reference to the patriotic rivalry of Adams and Jefferson. Though the stature of the rivals is not nearly so great, I consider the contest between McCain and Obama, like most presidential rivals, to be a contest between real patriots. These men almost universally have a great love for their country depite any individual flaws. McCain asks a very good question about our current American spirit of patriotism:
Would they (Adams and Jefferson) find that love of country was just as strong in the hearts of today’s Americans?
Unlike McCain I do not believe they would find our current love of country to be as strong among the nation as a whole. We certainly have patriots today – probably numerically more than in the 18th century – but overall and as a percentage of the population I think that they would find our patriotism to be comparatively lacking. The evidence is in the smallness of most of our individual thinking and in the bitter emptiness of most of our political dialog.
At one time I believed that Obama had the potential to be another Adams or Jefferson, but despite his gift for rhetoric he has been showing himself to be a modern politician, speaking of principles but standing on political expediency. Once again Obama demonstrates his ability to articulate truths which are hard to describe and even harder to implement:
. . . each generation must understand that the blessings of freedom require our constant vigilance, and that true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice . . . the liberty we defend {is} the liberty of each of us to follow our dreams. . . . the equality we seek {is} not an equality of results but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. (emphasis added)
Obama’s editorial was closer to perfect than McCains, but his actions are no closer to perfectly implementing those high ideals than McCain’s are.
The post is good except for the final sentence. It seems a cop-out to equally categorize each candidate by a single description and then fail to justify that leveling with any substantial examples.
I am not sure if we have less patriotism today or if it is merely a case of anti-americanism getting more press even in this country, which brings up the fact that Obama spent twenty years in a church that mixes politics and religion and in which anti-Americanism is very strong content of the political sermons. It is unbelievable that in twenty years our would-be president was unaware of those very strong anti-American and anti-white people, political sermons. It amazes me that while Bush is accused of mixing state and religion because he takes his religion seriously, althogh Bush does not attend a church that mixes politics and religion, but Obama has ths far escaped such an accusation, even as Obama supportd Bush’s view that churches should be utilized for their social benefits. Let us hope that Obama is not intending the sort of church that he was a member of for twenty years.
If you consider Obama’s participation in a political religious church that preached very strong anti-American thetoric, what is there in McCain’s record that equals this and would justify lumping McCain in the same category as Obama. On the other side what is there in Obama’s record to match McCain’s miltiary service to our country?
I don’t know that I could fully explain my position, but I have lived in overwhelmingly black areas and have attended their churches. I have learned a lot about the culture of those areas and as a result I am not nearly so worried about what is played up as anti-Americanism from Obama’s (former) church. I have heard things from white preachers that were equally disparaging of the nation.
As for McCain’s military service, outside of his time as a POW it is nothing remarkable, and even as a POW I would expect the same conduct from any good soldier.
Obama has not served in the military, but he has spoken out directly against major defects in the deficiencies of his own racial culture. Despite how the media might want to paint him, Obama is not making any attempt to be the black President of the United States – he is simply trying to do what he thinks is best for a country he loves, just like McCain.
I would not argue that we need to view what is best for the country the same way he does, but I would argue that it is unfair to doubts a person’s patriotism because we don’t share their perspective.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a balck or white church preaching racist and/or anti-american politics , it bothers me and I think it is a serious character issue especially when the character under consideration is patriotism.
If you say that the only remarkable thing about McCain’s military service is that he was a POW, then you are saying that there is nothing remarkable or partiotic about military service in general.
If your argument is that military service does not count anything toward patriotism, and that mixing racist and anti-American politics with religion has nothing to say about patriotism, then the question is what characterists do have consideration toward partriotism _ fancy rhetoric? Maybe flag pins? Since Obama is currently on the cover of Rolling Stone in all of his rock star glory smiling down at his lapel newly adorned with flag pin, then I guess we can conclude that Obama is more patriotic than McCain, not having ever seen such slick imagery of McCain drawing attention to such an accoutrament.
If you are suggesting that I question Obama’s pattriotism merely because I disagree with his “perspective”, then I object. The explanation given by Obama’s own team as to why Obama was involved in that church for twenty years is because it was necessary as a career move. Now Obama is wooing evangelicals and we are supposed to believe in his religous sincerety because in this election process wooing evangelcals is a good career move.
Further more, It is absolutely true that I think that the anti-Americanism preached with viscous falsity and lies by Obama’s former pastor is unpatriotic. Sorry, it’s the content and substance that makes me think so and besides I didn’t see a flag pin on his lapel and so that makes my case.
And may I point out that you yourself said of Obama that “he has been showing himself to be a modern politician, speaking of principles but standing on political expediency” and yet the only support that you give for Obama’s “patriotism” are the words he speaks. I though the point of your former post was that according to you both candidates do not back up words with action and so it hardly makes the case that Obahma is patriotic because of the speeches that he makes.
In the case of McCain , his truely does stand for what he believes and does not just take points of views and join organizations as a matter of political expediency. MacCain for the surge in Iraq when very few would support it and such a position could not be described as “poliotically expedient” – while Obama was calling for withdrawal. If Obama had his way we would have withdrawn before the surge could have a chance to succeed. The surge is succeeding now and co-incidently there is less news coverage on Iraq
David, I don’t see much about Barak Obama’s patriotism here. Because of that, I heard this on Rush Limbaugh this week, and thought I should share it here. (I wish I could go to the original sources, but I don’t have the time to.) I am glad, however, that your opinion of Obama has become more jaded. Yes, he is just a smooth-talking politician that would do serious damage to our country.
———–
OBAMA: I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. (applause). And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine. (applause).
RUSH: Wait a minute, whose patriotism has been questioned here? Whose qualifications have been questioned here? What’s happening here, folks, is very simple, an effort to devalue McCain’s military experience and hero status and to raise up Obama’s patriotic position by redefining what patriotism is. Here’s more of Obama from just a moment ago in Missouri.
OBAMA: When we’re arguing about patriotism, we’re arguing about who we are as a country and, more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. (applause)
RUSH: Then why the hell do you feel it necessary to go to Independence, Missouri and talk about it? Then why the hell do you have such difficulty in deciding whether or not to wear the American flag lapel pin? One party obviously has a track record that deserves to be examined. We all know which party that is. And this is why this party is constantly defending itself on this. Let’s be honest, folks. Patriotism is equated with supporting the military when the US is at war. Which political party the last three years has done its best to secure defeat of its country and the US military at war? Democrat Party. One party has a track record that deserves to be examined when it comes to patriotism, and they know it. They know they’re weak on national security. Which is why they gave us Kerry the last election, they thought he would overcome it. Which is why they’re now trying to devalue McCain’s hero status and his war service and that’s why they send their candidate out to Independence, Missouri, to do a defensive speech on patriotism, because they know. Here’s another from Obama.
OBAMA: Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. (applause). As Mark Twain, the greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.” (applause) That’s what patriotism is.
RUSH: Wait a second. He just contradicted himself here. Patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. And then he quotes Mark Twain: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” This is a huge contradiction. Which political party is it that is suggesting to us that terrorists deserve constitutional rights, the same constitutional rights accorded United States citizens? We don’t have the right to spy on terrorists? Which party is it that wants us to sue phone companies that allow terrorists to be spied on? Which party is it that’s doing its level best to discredit any intelligence gathering technique that is used in order to improve this nation’s security? No wonder they feel defensive about this. Which party was it that was saying that the surge would never work? Which party was it that claimed the surge wouldn’t work? Which party was it whose supporters ran a full-page New York Times ad on “General Betraeus”?
Which party was it whose members accused Petraeus of lying before he opened his mouth? Which party has as a member a man who avoided voting on the MoveOn.org resolution in the Senate? Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. Remember the vote on condemning MoveOn.org, guess who didn’t vote? He wasn’t there, he didn’t vote. It was Barack Obama. Which party has accused troops of murder and rape? The Democrat Party. Which party has members that have accused Club Gitmo operatives of torture and being like Pol Pot’s regime and the people who ran the Soviet Gulags? That would be Dick Durbin and the Democrat Party. Which political party has tried to kill — and they failed — war spending bills with poison pills and other techniques? It would be the Democrat Party. So no wonder they feel defensive about patriotism. Here’s our final Obama sound bite from his speech in Independence today.
OBAMA: Surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that however rough and imperfect captures the best of America’s common spirit. What would such a definition look like?
RUSH: Okay, so now not only are we being lectured to on patriotism by Obama, we’re being told that only he can redefine it. He’s going to redefine patriotism for us. What he says after this doesn’t matter. We don’t need The Messiah to redefine patriotism. We know it when we see it. We know it when we don’t see it. And we see it plain as day when we don’t see it. So he wants to redefine it. They want to wipe out any status that McCain enjoys as a war hero or a servant to his country.
———–
RUSH: We’ll start with Michael in Naperville, Illinois. Nice to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Real quick. I’m furious about this General Clark saying this stuff about John McCain. In his twenties, John McCain was serving his country. He got shot down and was in a prisoner of war camp for five years. Barack Obama in his twenties, by his own words, was sitting around, smoking pot and doing cocaine, snorting cocaine. I mean, this guy served his country while Barack Obama was trying to find his racial identity during his twenties and John McCain was serving his country. I’m furious about this.
RUSH: No, you’re not. You’re not curious at all. You’re trying to make a blistering point which you’ve done very well.
CALLER: I’m furious, not curious!
RUSH: Oh, sorry. Then you ought to be furious about it.
CALLER: I’m furious. I mean, this guy was sitting around doing nothing while John McCain was in the service.
RUSH: He’s still done nothing! What has he done since? Seriously, what has he done? He’s “organized communities” in Chicago. Eh eh, we all know what that means. What’s he done? He’s senator in Illinois, and he bailed out of 130 votes. What’s he done since? What’s he done? What’s he accomplished? He’s a smooth talker and he makes people feel good.
Mac, easy up. Your vehemence is running away with your organization.
I think David has been very fair to both candidates in his expression of doubts about the excellence of their patriotism speeches.
He opines that McCain is in error as to the level of patriotism in the citizens of this country. He also opines that while Obama speech sounded great on paper, Mr. Obama fails to back it up with actions.
David offered no opinion in the original article as to whether each person is personally a patriot.
In your reply, after you stated that David had lumped the two candidates in one category. A careful reading of the sentence about which you complained will show that the category he used was “Candidates that don’t deliver exactly what they promised”.
McCain has a track record for the whole world to see. I have not personally inspected his record because I don’t have that much time. I assume that his campaign would have made a huge point of noting his 100% consistent record if he had one. Therefore, I’m guessing that, for whatever reasons, he has not fulfilled 100% of his promises.
Obama does not have the track record the McCain does due to his lack of time in the Senate. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere to determine whether he has fulfilled every promise he ever made. Obama failed in that regard when he reneged on his promise to not use public funding for his campaign.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that both McCain and Obama have not done everything they ever promised and David was right to put them in the same category.
I understand that you think McCain is the superior choice for President and I agree with you on the whole. However, it is important to note the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates or you run the risk of making a bad decision (unless the person one of the people you’re choosing between is me, I have no faults). David has argued for and against each candidate, and I think he’s done a good job.
Carl if you are calling me vehement for my depiction of Reverend Wright, I have to wonder if you have ever listened to Reverand Wright’s political sermons that equally deserve the description I have already applied as well as being deservingly described as vehement.
I have no idea what your qualification “100% consistent” actually means but in fact McCains record is often upheld. Liberal Pundits like to portray McCain as inconsistent because he came out for drilling for oil in response to our current crisis. The same pundits criticize Bush for remaining true to his beliefs and not changing his mind in accordance to public opinion. Which way do they want it? It is absurd to portray someone as “waffeling” because they adjust their opinion in response to current reality, which happens to be a major crisis. The argument that because no one has used the phrase that McCain is “100% consistent” means that McCain is inconsistent doesn’t hold water. It’s an absurd phrase in the first place and why should anyone use that sort of terminology?
David has a right to do anything he pleases but it doesn’t make David right. And, this may come as a surprise to you, but I also have a right to respond and question David’s assertions. It is not a one way street, So lighten Up my freind.
It’s all well and fine to say that one must recognioze the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate but you haven’t done that, – nor have you justified your opinion that David has done that. I am just coming into the conversation in the current post. I acknowledged that David had done a good job until his last paragraph and I still stand by that opinion.
Neither you or David has answered the question – if military service is discounted, if racism and anti-americanism are discounted – what then is the basis by which you measure patriotism?
Easy Mac, your vehemence is now running away with your spelling, (it ran away with it before, but we were still on friendly terms so I didn’t want to mention it).
Mac, you’re right, I haven’t listened to Mr. Wright, why would I? Did I say that you were vehement and Mr. Wright was mild? I certainly didn’t mean for my comments to come across as such. I simply described your replies as vehement based on your choice of words. Now, I’d like you to read my next sentence very carefully. I AGREE WITH YOU ON MCCAIN. I think he’d make an excellent president. I think he’s a patriot and his service does him credit. I don’t think a 100% consistent record is the best thing to have, it shows stubbornness and the inability to deal with reality. HOWEVER the media will skewer anybody but Obama for such a trait. Note what they did to Romney.
I will now justify my opinion. It’s my opinion, and so I’m entitled to have it under our laws If you want to see what I think a good argument for and against each candidate is, please reread David’s original post.
Did I ever say that you had no right to respond? I reread my comment and I don’t think I did. Make a note, when commenting, read twice, post once, spell check always, it saves on embarrassment.
I apologize to all for my silence here – I’ve been very busy, but some of these comments really demand that I respond. Due to the number and length of comments I may miss a few points, but here goes.
Mackenzie,
You’re jumping to conclusions. Just because I see nothing remarkable in McCain’s service does not mean that I see nothing remarkable in military service. McCain’s record is one of excessive demerits, lack of discipline, poor academic performance, and surviving as a prisoner of war. Perhaps my expectations are too high when I say that I would expect any decent soldier to adhere to the first-in/first-out rule when offered a chance to be released.
As for the anti-Americanism in Obama’s church or any number of white churches, I think you have to account for the cultural context. The things that were said have a lot more to do with evangelical hell-and-damnation style preaching than with hatred for this nation.
When I argue that Obama is truly patriotic the argument is not based on his words, but on the fact that he is running for President. I am convinced that anyone who runs a serious campaign for President is a patriot at heart or they would not expend the energy necessary to run the campaign.
Melissa,
Rush is as valuable a commentator as Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton. I admit that Rush is very intelligent and I agree with some of his ideas, but on his show all you get is a fire-hose of partisanship with possibly a drip of intelligence.
Carl,
I appreciate your defense earlier, but I must make a couple of corrections. First, I did offer an opinion on the patriotism of both men (perhaps not very clearly). My intent was to state that while they did not rise to the level of an Adams or Jefferson there were both still patriots. Second, the category that I explicitly used to lump the two of them together was the category of “Candidates for President of the United States.” I’m fairly certain that nobody can dispute that both men fall into that category.
And finally may I just observe the irony that Carl and Mackenzie are the ones debating here and yet their positions on both McCain and Obama appear to be closer to each other than they are to my positions on either candidate.
Duly noted on the irony. No your question of patriotism was not clear to me, I thought you were talking about the articles they wrote. I spoke imprecisely before when I said McCain would be an excellent leader. I meant “least harmful leader”.
Finally, I will dispute “Candidates for President of the United States”. They are presumptive candidates until after the conventions. Ha, this one was just to give you a hard time.
“Presumptive Candidates”, I’ll keep that in mind – I guess that is to allow for any assassinations between now and the conventions (as referenced by Senator Clinton).
David, My point is that the choice to serve in the military counts as patriotic. PERIOD. If you say that McCain’s record is one of “excessive demerits, lack of discipline, poor academic performance, and surviving as a prisoner of war”, then please provide a source for this statement. If academic performance is a star on the side of patriotism, then you can give a star for Obama’s record of performance in high powered academic institutions, where he also took cocaine and other drugs, which if you are going to hold McCain to “excessive demerits” while serving in the military, perhaps you should hold Obama’s drug taking while attending academic institutions
. It seem that you are somehow discounting McCain’s performances as a prisoner of war in which he endured torture rather than betray his fellow prisoners and country , while McCain’s lack of “academic performance” count for considerably as a measure of patriotism. I do see why academic performance counts towards patriotism. The ringleaders and organizers of 911 were educated at top western universities. In fact academia is a breeding ground for anti-American propaganda. If we were to measure patriotism by academic performance, then the ringleaders of AL Queda would definitely score higher than McCain, who merely performed exceptionally and admirably under extreme physical duress.
I never said that serving in the military was not patriotic. A source for my statements regarding McCain’s military career can be found here. You could take off the poor academic performance and still show conclusively that McCain’s military career was mediocre at best prior to becoming a POW.
My complaint about McCain’s academic performance has a lot to do with the weak character that is displayed by someone who chooses to join the military but refuses to conform to military standards of conduct. Does that history make it likely that he will keep his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution if he takes that oath as President?
Perhaps you should note that I have not given Obama any credit for his apparently excellent academic performance, nor for his past drug use. Your default position seems to be that if I dislike McCain I must favor Obama. I cannot see anywhere in this discussion where I have favored Obama other than to say that I found the content of his editorial to be less prone to error.
You’re jumping to conclusions. Just because I see nothing remarkable in McCain’s service does not mean that I see nothing remarkable in military service. McCain’s record is one of excessive demerits, lack of discipline, poor academic performance, and surviving as a prisoner of war.
I clicked on your source link and there is a lot more information mentioned about McCain’s military career than the few details that you have selected as sigfnifigant. McCaine received demerits “for offenses such as shoes not being shined, formation faults, room in disorder, and talking out of place”, which you have placed more signifigance on than the abundance of other details given in the article. In fact there is so much more information about McCain, his youthful attitudes and life style, and an abundance of episodes and accomplishments of his military career that I can only assume you didn’t read the whole article. It makes no sense to reduce McCain’s military career to “excessive demerits, lack of discipline, poor academic performance, and surviving as a prisoner of war”. The five years as a prisoner of war are the most publicised, but if you read the whole article you will see that there were many occassions when McCain narrowly escaped injury or death and preformed acts of bravery.
It would take too long to represent in full detail what is included in the link you gave about McCain’s military career, but for the sake of an example, here is a quote:
During October 1967, the pilots operated in constant twelve-hour on, twelve-hour off shifts.[81] McCain would be awarded a Navy Commendation Medal for leading his air section through heavy enemy fire during an October 18 raid on the Lac Trai shipyard in Haiphong.[82] On October 25, McCain successfully attacked the Phuc Yen airfield north of Hanoi against a barrage of anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missile fire, which would garner him the Bronze Star Medal.[82] Air defenses around Hanoi were then the strongest
It is difficult for me to believe that you have heard Reverend Write’s sermons in which hatred for America was expressed in no unquestionable terms.
If patriotism is measured by running for president, then that is a pretty level way of measuring it. Both McCain and Obama are running for president, but we knew that before you wrote this article and asking if the actions of the candidate implement the ideas. The ideas that each candidate has expressed would not have been spoken in the context that they were , if it were no that both men are running for president.
My complaint about McCain’s academic performance has a lot to do with the weak character that is displayed by someone who chooses to join the military but refuses to conform to David said “military standards of conduct. Does that history make it likely that he will keep his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution if he takes that oath as President?”
As Carl said we should examine each candidates strengths and weaknesses and most people have both. You can describe McCain’s rebellousness as a weakness but it is a weakness often found in those who also exhibit unusual acts of courage and endurance. You are asking if we should trust a man who wouldn’t shine his shoes or keep his quaters orderly, or who rebelled against authority,- and about whom the following is also true:
“In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he remained for two years.[110] Unknown to the POWs, in May 1968, Jack McCain was named Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC) effective in July, stationed in Honolulu and commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.[111][3] In mid-June, Major Bai, commander of the North Vietnamese prison camp system,[112] offered McCain a chance to return home early.[111] The North Vietnamese wanted a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful,[113] and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[111] McCain turned down the offer of release, due to the POWs’ “first in, first out” interpretation of the U.S. Code of Conduct:[114] he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[85][115] McCain’s refusal to be released was even remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Le Duc Tho to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman, during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.[116] Enraged by his declining of the offer, Bai and his assistant told McCain that things would get very bad for him.[115]”
Or a man who is willing to stand up for the surge when it was politically unpopular, and who has a proven bi-partisan record? I think I’ll take the chance on the unshined shoe bit, after all he was a lot younger then and he probably shines his shoes now.
Meanwhile you write off Reverend Wright screaming “Damn America” and other horrible things about “white America”.
You may not see that you are favoring Obama but in your effort to write of McCain’s impressive military career, his acts of bravery, his ability to endure torture and refusal to reveal any signifigant information to the enemy even under the extremity of torture, is , in my book favoring Obama by bending over backward to discredit McCains strengths, while exagerating McCain’s weaknesses.
And you also favor Obama by shrugging off his relationship to a political religion that promotes racism and anti-Americanism. Obama has also worked with an American terrorist who was probably bombing buildings in America at the same time that McCain was serving his country in the military. I am sure you can find a way to gloss over that relationship. No favoritism of Obama on your part. None at all.
As I noted on Lyall’s blog, Obama’s book makes it clear that his love of America is a deeply complicated issue. For McCain, it’s a pretty straightforward matter. I’m not sure what that says about either man’s qualification to serve as president. But I can tell you that from a campaigning perspective, it’s far easier to convey a simple love of country to voters than a more convoluted sentiment.
Mackenzie,
I did read the entire article I had linked to – prior to reading it I was more supportive of McCain than I am now. You obviously believe that I expect too much of the members of the military since I continue to assert that any good officer should have done the same things as McCain in the combat and POW portions of his military career.
I have no doubt that I have not listened to all the words of reverend Wright, but I’m sure I have lived closer to and gained a greater understanding of the culture of black evangelical churches such as the one Obama attended. The words are certainly inflammatory – especially for those listeners who are predisposed to disagree with the sentiments being expressed – but all the preachers I met and talked to who were prone to engage in such oration were not hateful of their nation – only critical of her faults.
Reach,
Obama’s complex approach to love-of-country is likely to level the political playing field in a year which naturally favors the democrats. I have no doubt of his love for America any more than I doubt McCain’s love for America. This comment thread proves conclusively that others are no so sure about the issue.
David,
I do not think that you demand too much, I think that you too much importance on trivial issues, while failing to recognize the most vital aspects of military service. I think that you fail to give credit where credit is fundamenatlly due, in the case of John McCain while you let Obama slide.
You may feel that you can justify racist political sermons because you are so close to a racist black community, for all I know you are black. I have known many black people in my life as well, particuarily in NYC but those that I know did not exhibit such open hatred toward white people and America. Maybe you think I hold my standards too high because I believe that people of any race and color can transcend racism and that racial transcendence is a vital quality in consideration of a president. I think that identifying all black people with a radical fringe is racial profiling, the same as it is racial profiling to identify all Muslims with fundamentalists. In fact that is a good reference and I think it is fair to describe Reverend Wright and his like as Black Fundamentalists. I certainly do not believe that they represent the larger population of black people.
It is disturbing not only that Obama’s supporters justify his association with such a fringe element as necessary in order to gain a career advantage, but it is also disturbing that Obama elected to be part of such a church for career motivations rather than becoming a member of a church for reasons related to spiritual development. I cannot believe that a church promoting a political agenda is a church that furthers spiritual understanding. I do not believe that politics belong in church sermons and if Obama is coming out in favor of Bush’s faith-based initiative it scares me that the “faith” organization, with which Obama has been associated for over twenty years hardly seems like a faith based church, but rather an organization furthering a partisan political agenda, Considering that Obama has been marketing himself as a bi-partisan politician , why would you not question Obama’s ability to be bi-partisan after such a long association with a radical and partisan political organization that masquerades as a church? This is as scary as it gets in terms of non-separation of church and state. It also is a little too close to the combination of politics and religion that Al Queda uses to supply it’s terror machine with cannon fodder.
Reach, I do not take common knowledge theories seriously. The theory that the Democrats will be naturally favored may end the way of former commonly believed thories such as the one that clained with such certainty that the next Democratic nominee wil be Hillary Clinton! -Or the common knowledge that was floated last summer that John McCain’s race for the Republican nomination was finished.
I predict that Obama is going to continue to put his foot his in his mouth, just as as he has been doing at a regular clip for the past few months, and I predict that now that the media has belatedly decided to vett Obama that more questionable associations will emerge and that as Obama continues to calculate which the best positions to support in order to gain the presidency, that his calculatons will become transparent to even the most starry-eyed Obama fans. All McCain has to do is keep on straight talking.
Reach, I’m afraid that your concise, well-reasoned reply, complete with correct grammar and spelling, has no place in the world of online political commentary. You’d do better in the Wall Street Journal or something similar.
Of course I’m just kidding you David; you do pretty well too.
Mackenzie,
I don’t believe that I ever suggested that I believe that Obama is working in a bi-partisan manner – he has an extremely partisan record. The fact is that my commentary was on two editorials, of which Obama’s was clearly superior, but then we have already seen that Obama is a much more gifted speaker than McCain (not that I see that as sufficient cause to choose him for President).
I just read the two editorials, and I found McCains to be more clearly focused on the meaning of patriotism as putting the interests of the country above private interests. While both men recognize military service as patriotic, Obama’s speach is not as clearly focused on patriotism, which in the words of President Kennedy’s speechwriter, Dick Goodwin, is defined as “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”. Obama’s speech is often about what the country does for the individual rather than what the individual does for the country. Obama’s speech also centers a lot on his own personal expereinces, while McCain’s speech only relies on his personal experiences in relation to his military service to the country, while Obama’s speaks about his grandfather’s military service.
I concur with a definition of patriotism that is service to the country, or service the something larger than the individual and so I think McCain’s speech stuck to the subject of patriotism, whereas Obama’s speech wavered into the territory of what our country does for the individual.
Americans do not seem to clearly agree that Obama’s speech is clearly superior. In the poll McCain is ahead 52-48.
I have never heard anyone argue that McCain could hold a candle to Obama as an orator. I would read the 52-48 polling as an indication that the American people can see through the words and seem to agree with McCain more – which would indicate that Obama’s ideals may be deemed inferior, but that does not necessarily mean that McCain is comparable to Obama as a speaker.
I will once again repeat myself:
I am glad, however, that your opinion of Obama has become more jaded. Yes, he is just a smooth-talking politician that would do serious damage to our country.
What is it that you find about Obama’s editorial on patriotism that you find “superior”. I do not understand how a person can be described as a great orator if they do not actually communicate well focused ideas. In the interview that Mellisa sent through the email to this dialogue,(But was not published here), the quotes given by Obama never seem to add up to actually saying anything crisp and coherent. I have allready given you reasons why I think McCain made the far superior speech – which is that McCain’s speech is about patriotism and identifies patriotism as service to something larger than than self-interest, where as Obama’s speech appears to be attempting to sell patriotism on the basis that it is in one’s self interest to be patriotic. He also comes across as trying to convince the public that he, Obama, is patriotic, and so it seems that Obama’s speech is somewhat self-serving, which is not resonate with the meaning of patriotism. It is not that Obama made untrue statements, but that Obama does not have a clear concept of patriotism as service to one’s country. Obama talks too much about what one’s country can do for the private individual than is appropo in an editorial about patriotism, imho.
Now you have heard someone say that McCain is a better orator than Obama.
Yes, now I have heard someone say that McCain is a better orator than Obama. By the way, I would appreciate it if you could double-check you claim that something on this thread went unpublished – I did not censor anything so I’d like to know if there is something I missed.
You are right, after searching “Melissa”. I found it (Post 5). I had read the email version and thought that many well formulated and very valid points were made. Then there were a lot of post posted at that time and the only mention I noticed of Mellissa’s post was where you responded to all of the points in the post by dismissing Limbaugh as a partisan
I notice that Limbaugh made the following point and that it applies to your reduction of McCain’s impressive military career to laying emphasis on the fact that he got demerits for not shining his shoes, etcetera (although we had to actually read the article to find out what McCain got demerits for, and I had to ask for the source of your claim in order to do that)
Rush “Which is why they’re now trying to devalue McCain’s hero status and his war service and that’s why they send their candidate out to Independence, Missouri, to do a defensive speech on patriotism”
Rush expresses a series of valid points about the Democrat’s support of terrorist’s rights, giving terrorists the same rights as United States citizens. Obama may have been listening because shortly after Obama switches his position on the privacy/security issue and comes out against prosecuting private companies that have aided the government in spying on our enemies. Then Obama openly targets MoveOn.org for calling General Petraeus “General Betraeus”, once again echoing the points made by Limbaugh in the “partisan editorial”, which also reminded us that Obama wasn’t present when the Senate voted on the Moveon.org resolution. This shift to the center, now that it is a general campaign as opposed to a primary, angers Obama’s far-left wing supporters who greatly contributed to Obama’s big time funding campaign during the primaries– the same successful funding campaign that motivated Obama to change his position on public funding.
Please tell me that you were not actually surprised by Obama’s shift to the center – it was predictable and represents the same type of political calculation as McCain’s shift to the right during primary season.
P.S. I’m glad to know that I did not miss Melissa’s post.
I am not at all surprised that Obama made a shift to the center, nor that McCain has also shifted some of his positions but I do not didmissively lump both candidates into a common category and shut the door on the issue as you apparently are attempting. If you want to discuss some of the ways that McCain has shifted his positions, you can do so and then there can be a fair evaluation as to the reasons and justifications for each candidates shifting of their positions. I certainly do not believe that a politician should never change their positions about issues. It the manner, timing and reasons for shifting positions that need to be examined. Obama’s timing on coming out against Moveon.orgs slandering of General Petraeus is decidedly belated. Why did Obama wait so long after the fact?
Another point is that Obama’s origional marketing campaign is that Obama rises above politics. Obama didn’t disown Reverend Wright until the Reverend called Obama a politician. In accordance with the Obama camp’s own marketing of Obama, we should hold Obama to higher standards than other politicians – and so if you accept the marketing of Obama, you should be surprised by his shift of positions, the more so than other candidates who are not marketing themselves as above politics.
Who says that I accept the marketing of Obama?
Obama shifted his position and made a statement about the “General Betrayus” ad now because he’s in general election mode – of course you already knew the reason. Similarly, McCain suddenly realized that he was a huge fan of making the Bush tax cuts permanent back in January (years after the debate lay dormant) because it was primary season.
Let’s not pretend that McCain has any special virtue as a politician. He’s a war survivor and Obama is the man of the hour and in both cases what they say right now will not necessarily be binding after they take an oath of office.
You say McCain came out for supporting the Bush tax cuts because it is a primary season, but that amounts to an economic policy and deserves more examination than simply being lumped with Obama’s sudden outrage at MoveOn.org months after MoveOn.org made the slanderous name-calling in September of 2007. In September 2007, MoveOn.org was generating funds for Obama’s primary race, and at the time it was not as apparent as it is today that the surge, under general Petraeus’s direction would succeed. McCain came out in favor of the surge before it was generally apparent that it would succeed, and in fact when it was unpopular to do so, and that was during the Republican primaries. So let us not pretend that McCain and Obama act equally out of politically expedient motivations.
A little research reveals that McCain voted for an extension of the Bush tax cuts in May of 2006, prior to primary season.
I think that McCain’s position on the tax cuts deserve more examination than merely being reduced to a flip-flop. He originally opposed the tax-cuts because there was not enough going to the middle classes. He is currently advocating that they need to be balanced with cuts in spending I am not well enough informed on his reasons for making the Bush tax cuts permanent at this time but I do believe that there should be more examination given to that position, and I do not believe it is in the same category as Obama’s delayed outrage at MoveOn.org. Obama’s delayed outrage is a simple matter. Voting on economic bills is a complex matter and one may not believe completely in all points of a given bill but may none the less vote for it as a better option than not. We do not live in a perfect world and it is all too often that a bill that apparently advocates one policy has hidden agendas about which the unsophisticated public is not necessarily aware, and so a vote on such a bill can be used to generate a wrong impression if only partial information is given.
Regarding the Bush tax cuts, of which I am not very well informed, but it has always bothered me that there has been so much opposition to tax cuts for the wealthy without mention of the fact that if the wealthy are heavily taxed they are perfectly able to move their wealth to other countries where they are not heavily taxed, and so a justifiable reason for extending tax cuts to the wealthy includes incentive to keep the capital in this country. I do not understand it that well but it has always seemed to me that this point should be brought up and yet it never is.
McCain’s reasoning for opposing the tax cuts initially was not that they were not going to the middle class, it was that there were not corresponding spending cuts. His reasoning now that they should be made permanent is not so clear – in fact I have not heard him give any reasoning. It sounds like red meat for his red base. I agree that the reaction to MoveOn.org should be more clearcut than economic policy would be, but I still see both moves as political calculations more than honestly held positions by either candidate.
In the article I just read today it says that it is a misunderstanding that McCain’s original argument was that the tax cuts needed to be supplemented by spending cuts.
Quote: “In May 2001, when Congress first considered the tax cuts, McCain said in a May 26, 2001, floor statement that he opposed the bill because “so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.”
The link in the above quote leads to The Senate Congressional Report for May 26, 2001.
I haven’t had the opportunity to read that in full but if one wants reliable facts, it seems to be the most reliable source.
I know that McCain currently supports tax cuts being supplemented by spending cuts because I have listened to recent interviews with McCain broadcast on cable TV.
Editing process still drives me crasy. I thought I had it right but when I clicked on my link to see if it worked it reverted to the former version. I thought the post had already posted correctly at that point.
Mackenzie,
Thanks for that article. I was apparently among those who misunderstood his original argument. I’m not sure if I should be pleased or disappointed that his original argument was not as wise as the argument I had believed him to make.
{I think your editing troubles on this last one might have been caused because your comment was held for moderation because of the multiple links – a spam precaution. Sorry for the inconvenience.}
Do you mean that you are dissapointed that McCain didn’t originally argue that the tax breaks should be balanced by spending cuts? Possibly because in the year 2001, spending cuts were not as much an issue as they are now. May, 2001 is prior to 911, which certainly caused and increase in spending.
McCain’s original argument was that there should be more tax cuts that benefit the middle classes, with which I agree.
Obama wants to increase taxes and Hillary wanted businesses to take on the burden of health care which would mean that many small business would have to cut back on employees since the cost of employing would be radically increased. Large businesses would have yet more reasons to move jobs over seas to cheap labor markets in countries that have not developed labor rights laws and environmental standards.
I should go dig up the numbers (have a look around PerotCharts.com), but there are two flaws in your argument. First, tax cuts in 2001 – even before 9/11 – should have been paired with spending cuts. Second, the vast majority of increased domestic discretionary spending had no connection with 9/11 – even our funding of the Iraq war could have continued without deficits by decreasing our domestic discretionary spending.
It was not an argument it was an observation, which I will now enhance apon. May, 2001 was the beginning of the Bush adminsistration. Bush took office in January and the transition time between the election and taking office was shortened by all the recounts demanded by Democrats. The first State of the Union Adress was given in February and spoke about balancing the budget and paying down the dept. That was the expectation at that time and so it would have been redundant, in May of 2001, for McCain to argue that tax relief should be balance by spending cuts, as the goal as allready stated was to reduce the debt and to keep a balanced budget.
You say that the expense of the war isn’t the issue since that expense can be offset by reducing domestic spending. The Democrats opposition to the war is usually combined with the idea that the money spent on the war can be spent domestically. Of course as of yesterday’s news about Iran testing long range missels, that choice may not be an option. However you seem to be suggesting that the budget could have been balanced by reducing domestic programs. Which programs do you think should be reduced and/or eliminated?
The Obama campaign has proposes many new costly programs and one of the ways that Obama proposes to pay for them are by reducing military spending
Quote: “The total price tag of Obama’s plans, according to his campaign, is $130 billion a year. On top of that, Obama is proposing a middle-class tax cut of about $80 billion a year.
….
It is a far different blueprint than McCain is offering. The senator from Arizona has proposed relatively little new spending, arguing that tax cuts and private business are more effective means of solving problems.”
Quotes found HERE
I had not connected the 2001 SOTU with McCains stance on the tax cuts – even with that it seems that he might have suggested that spending cuts might help achieve that goal faster in the face of tax cuts.
Just because the Democrats want to spend the money if they can end the war does not mean that I support them on that front. Nor, I hope, have I ever voiced support for any new programs proposed by Obama. On those issues I align more closely with McCain.
You really shouldn’t ask what discretionary spending I think we should cut. Our farm subsidies should go, the money we spend on education is very poorly used and should not be taken from the states in the first place, income security programs are not the business of government (note that those programs are listed separately from social security – which is not considered discretionary spending), we should reduce our expenses in international affairs (as I understand it, that includes things like foreign aid and dues to the UN and the world bank – money which probably creates as many problems as it solves). That’s $176B right there which is more than the deficit in FY 2007.
The point of bringing up the State of the Union Address was to demonstrate that reducing the debt and keeping the budget balanced was allready the plan at that time.
Since the idea of balancing the budget and reducing the debt was already part of the discussion, I think that McCain used his alloted speaking time more productively by bringing up the issue that there was not enough in the plan for the middle classes.
Since you do not watch cable then you have probably never seen televised congressional sessions on Cspan. Each speaker has allotted minutes to speak and so to use those minutes to suggest something that has already been stated would be wasteful. Each speaker has to use his allotted speaking time to get across the most cruciial points, which in this case would be more cuts for the middle classes which is exactly the use that McCain put his alloted speaking time to.
If I shouldn’t ask you a question, then why did you spend so much time answering it? I don’t know how I am supposed to respond to that.-but Just one comment – Reducing foreign aid seems dangerously isolationist in today’s world and besides I think it is a positive act that this country does and likely benefits us in ways that cannot be analysed but which we would feel if we suddenly stopped sending aid to those beyond our borders, who have been struck by misfortune. It helps to build allies and we need that.
By saying that I had not made the connection I intended to say “thanks for pointing that out.” Also, you are correct in assuming that I have not seen congressional sessions so I was unaware of the limitations.
The reason that I said you should not ask what programs I thought we should cut was that I assumed that you would not like my answer. Honestly, I would not want to end all foreign aid, but I do think that we give it away too easily without ensuring that it actually generates positive outcomes – for us or those who receive the aid.
Let’s just say that all the answers you gave are too large a topic for this discussion.
A while back you said “I’m not sure if I should be pleased or disappointed that his original argument was nor as wise as the argument I had believed him to make.”
And from the ensuing discussion it seems that the argument that you originally believed McCain to be making is his current argument – that the tax cuts need be supplemented with spending cuts.
Since MCCain is supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent,it seems he is no longer arguing to increase tax cuts for the middle classes. However, in effect, to not make the Bush tax cuts permament, at this point, equates with raising taxes.
Since Obama is against making the Bush tax cuts permament and for increasing tax cuts for the middle classes, then he is effectively for raising the taxes on the rich, which sounds fair enough but needs to be considered in terms of affects. If it results in capital leaving the country , it may not be a good thing for the economy, and then the taxes may have to raised on the middle classes to cover the costs of all the programs that Obama wants to fund.
The question is, can you raise taxes on the wealthy without causing capital to leave the country?
I would say no, you cannot raise taxes on the wealthy without causing some to send their wealth elsewhere. The funny thing about that is that wealthy democrats are as likely to send their capital elsewhere as wealthy republicans even if they verbally support those tax increases.
How about the wealthy independents?
Wealthy independents undoubtedly leave their capital in the US even when taxes on the wealthy are raised. 😉
There are some wealthy that use their wealth for the greater good. Bill Gates For Instance, Bono, who is actually a collaborater with Bill Gates. That is the beauty of the private capitalistic system. Although greed will allways exist, there are also philantropists. Under state capitalism there is only one source of capital and if that source is corrupt, then there is no other choice, but under private capitalism, there are multifarious choices and even some wealthy people who chose to use their wealth for a greater good.
However for the most part, by the law of averages, I believe that if one taxes the rich too heavily, especially in relation to other segments of the population, the rich will move their capital to a system more advantageous to them.
One should not be too quick to be cynical about wealthy people, especially those who are involved in philantropy. Private enterprise can often be much more efficient than governement and given all the programs that you have criticized and perceive to be wasteful, if you were a wealthy philantropist would you want to be heavily taxed so that the resources that you created with your talent and engenuity could be used to fund government programs that your perceived as pork fat, or inefficient? If you believed that you could use your resources in a more efficient manner than the government and that the resources, under your management would go to the people intended rather than an excessive bureocracy, why would you allow your resources to be heavily taxed and then managed by the government?
I think something got lost in translation if you thought I was being cynical. From your last two comments I would say that (1) you are preaching to the choir and (2) we have strayed a long way off the original topic.
I do not anticipate that every dialogue will be about points of disagreement and I did not intend any. I was just commenting as it relates to the policies of the candidates. The conversation has strayed from the subject of patriotism, not so much from rivalry, which invovles comparison between the two candidate’s policies
True