A political critique of all sides from an average Joe who is tired of politics-as-usual. It has become the status quo in Washington to say and do whatever it takes to get elected and stay in office. The media covers the he-said-she-said instead of reporting on the real issues. We, the people, are the only ones left to hold them accountable. Join me in holding our elected representatives, and those who aspire to become such, to a higher standard.
The surge is the issue that hurts the Obama campaign the most, in my opinion. He is asked about it in almost every interview, and he is forced to try to explain how the surge worked, but somehow he was still right.
I almost felt sorry for Obama, struggling to make this point on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos":
George: "But given all you just said, how do you escape the logic... you said that we succeeded in Iraq beyond our wildest dreams... how do you escape the logic that that means John McCain was right about the surge?"
Obama: "You, it's interesting to me why people are so focused on what's happened in the last year and half, and not in the last five."
George: "No, granted, you think you made the right decision going in... but about the surge."
Obama: "But they're connected George, and here's why. My whole premise has always been that it was a distraction for us to go into Iraq. Once we were there we had to make the best of a bad situation."
George: "And didn't the surge do that?"
Obama: "And what I have said is, at the time that we made the decision to go into the surge, that it did not address the underlying problem of the unwillingness of the Iraqis, to overcome their political differences and reconcile."
George: "15 out of the 18 benchmarks were met."
Obama: "And to provide the kind of strategy that would allow us to move forward. That wasn't part of the package on the surge. So, if the question is, has the surge done much better than we expected, in combination with these other factors, then the answer is yes, and I've said this repeatedly. But if the question is what was the judgement to be made at the time it was put forward by the Bush administration. My choice, and John McCain's choice was, are we going to continue to give George Bush a blank check without any strategy for political reconciliation, or are we going to try to pressure this administration to come up with a more coherent, cohesive plan for how we were going to wind this war down."
I'm not sure I understand his point (maybe it's too nuanced for a feeble mind like mine to understand), but what I think I heard was basically this:
"Yes, the surge worked. But it was still the right decision not to trust that it was going to work, given the fact that it was promoted by Bush, who is always wrong about everything. So McCain was wrong to think that the surge was going to work, even though it did. It was bad judgment to think that it would work. The only correct judgment to be made at the time was that we should begin to wind the war down (ie. decreasing troop numbers), instead of surging in more troops, even though it seems now that surging in more troops actually helped us wind the war down more rapidly. That result was not predictable, and therefore it was wrong the predict it, even if it turned out to be true."
Sure... OK. I guess that's a good enough answer to at least get the questioner to move on to the next topic, which clearly is the only way for him to save any face talking about the surge.
As for the other points he made.
The question of whether the war should have been started largely favors Obama, although there are still a minority who believe it was the right thing to do. Still, that is just changing the subject. And, it should be noted that McCain opposed Rumsfeld's strategy from the beginning. Who knows how the war would have turned out if McCain had his way from the beginning.
As for the perceived failure of the surge to address political reconciliation, why, then is the Iraq government now talking about us leaving, if the surge didn't significantly improve the political situation there? If you haven't noticed, there are political tensions in the US also. It was the violence that was the problem. As long as there is reduced violence, I'm content with letting the Iraqi's sort out their own political issues just as we do.
Obama alluded to, and others have explicitly stated, the argument that even McCain and Bush couldn't have hoped for the success that we've seen in the surge. I don't see any evidence of that, but even if it were true, good for them for being cautiously optimistic when they should have just been optimistic.
My advice to Obama: just admit you were wrong and get it over with. The longer you don't, the more you will be asked this question and be forced to give these sorts of awkward answers. I respect the fact that Obama stood up against the war when it was unpopular to do so. I also respect that McCain supported the surge when it was unpopular. So let's call it a draw and move on.
One might ask why I'm not calling on McCain to admit he was wrong about the war in general. The answer is that it is that McCain presumably still thinks that the war was the right thing to do, and will take the political heat for that. But Obama admits that the surge worked, but still defends his vote against it. It's the fact that Obama wants to have it both ways that bothers me. I'd respect his opinion more (although I would disagree with it) if he contended that the surge didn't work. At least then he would be consistent.
"If you watched the Republican National Convention over the last three days, you wouldn't know that we have the highest unemployment in five years because they didn't say a thing about what is going on with the middle class.
"They spent a lot of time talking about John McCain's biography, which we all honor," the Illinois senator said. "They talked about me a lot, in less than respectful terms. What they didn't talk about is you and what you're seeing in your lives and what you're going through, or what your friends or your neighbors are going through."
Did anyone doubt that Obama was going to say this, even before McCain gave his speech?
Since Obama apparently wasn't paying attention (and is counting on the fact that most other voters weren't either), here are some excerpts (full text is here). I apologize for the lengthy quotes, but that just makes my point that he did talk about the struggles of the middle class quite extensively:
These are tough times for many of you. You’re worried about keeping your job or finding a new one, and are struggling to put food on the table and stay in your home. All you ever asked of government is to stand on your side, not in your way. And that’s just what I intend to do: stand on your side and fight for your future.
...
I fight for Americans. I fight for you. I fight for Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market. Bill got a temporary job after he was out of work for seven months. Sue works three jobs to help pay the bills.
I fight for Jake and Toni Wimmer of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Jake works on a loading dock; coaches Little League, and raises money for the mentally and physically disabled. Toni is a schoolteacher, working toward her Master’s Degree. They have two sons, the youngest, Luke, has been diagnosed with autism. Their lives should matter to the people they elect to office. They matter to me.
...
My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.
Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3500 to $7000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity.
I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn’t even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That’s going to change on my watch. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We’re going to help workers who’ve lost a job that won’t come back, find a new one that won’t go away.
We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.
Some may disagree with his economic policy, but to say "he didn't say a thing" about the struggling economy is an outright lie.
Obama, reacting to the choice of Palin for McCain's vice presidential nominee:
Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.
The thing that bothers me the most about this quote is that is completely skips the part about her being governor. Yes, it was only for a year and a half, but it is a year and half more than Obama's leadership experience. It seems, if Obama was attempting to be honest, he should have a least said, "Today, John McCain put the first-term governor of a small state with zero..." I would have given him credit for that, at least. But as the quote stands, it is deceptive.
The "heartbeat" part was a nice touch as well.
Apart from that, there has been much buzz about the comparison between the experience of Obama and Palin. Here's my comparison:
Obama's got:
* Being a senator for 3 years (when he started running)
* More time in state government
Palin's got:
* 1 1/2 years as a governor (which the AP sees as equivalent to being a state senator, apparently)
* Being a mayor (which was not mentioned in the final comparison in the AP article)
Obama, in his well-delivered speech, want's America to know that he represents the death of the politics of the past:
For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us — that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it — because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.
I'd love nothing more than if it were true.
Obama loves to point out, as he did again tonight, that McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time. This is a deceptive statistic, and it's time I called him out on it. What is not stated, and what most Americans probably don't realize, is that many votes that take place are bi-partisan. They don't get the coverage as the really divisive issues, but yes, there are some things the bluest Democrat and the reddest Republican agree on.
Here's the proof. If you asked the average American how often Obama agrees with Bush, what do you think they'd say? On average, I'd bet the number would be pretty low. The facts are that Obama agrees with Bush 40% of the time.
Of course it's no shock that McCain agrees with Bush more often than Obama. The point here though is that Obama claims to be the face of the "new politics." So the stat that is most interesting to me is that Obama agrees with the Democratic position about 97% of the time.
Of course if you agree with 100% of the Democratic position, that's not a bad thing for you. The only reason McCain's perceived partisanship is a problem is because Bush is not popular. But no matter what your political persuasion, these numbers prove that both of these men are part of the old partisan politics.
Bill Clinton, reminiscing on the good ol' days when Republicans were criticizing his lack of experience:
On cue, CNN promptly put up on the screen this (irrelevant?) fact, which was cut from the youtube video:
Fact: Clinton is one of 12 pres. nominees who were younger than 47-year-old Obama; he was 45 in 1992.
Silly Republicans. Obama isn't that young, so all this talk of lack of experience is just spin, right? Wrong. Experience is more than just age. Bill Clinton had been a governor for a decade before he was president, and attorney general before that. Obama's experience in government leadership does not compare to that.
Obama's lack of experience was no more evident than when Biden was touting Obama's qualifications later in the evening: his work as a community organizer on Chicago's south side. True, the choice to help others rather than pursue loftier careers is admirable, but there are lots of Americans who have done admirable things. (serving in the military, for example). That alone doesn't prove he's ready to be president.
McCain made a double-gaff this week. First, he jokingly says that a 5 million dollar income is rich. And then he forgot how many houses he owns (I can just hear his campaign staff smacking their foreheads). Now, Obama would be politically negligent not to jump all over these comments, but I'm not going to give him a pass just because he's doing what any other politician would do. After all, he's supposed to represent the new politics, remember?
For one thing, the 5 million thing was clearly a joke. He picked a high number to make the point that it doesn't matter (he has a bad habit of doing this), since he's not going to raise taxes on anyone.
Secondly, while I admit that not knowing how many houses you own is certainly strange, owning a lot of houses means nothing. Do you think there aren't plenty of Democrats that have a lot of assets? I seem to remember one primary contender that I think has been in the news lately.
But while jumping all over McCain's gaffs, Obama made a mini-gaff of his own. Just after this clip ends, Obama reportedly said:
But if you’re like me, and you got one house, or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don’t lose their home, you might have a different perspective.
Like you? Oh yes, those millions of Americans with 1.65 million dollar homes.
Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)
(p.s. I wonder if McCain's perceived stumbling on this issue will make him less likely to pick Romney as the V.P.)
McCain does indeed want to lower the corporate tax rate for corporations (all of them, not just the big ones). You know, the same corporations the employ most of us. Yeah, they're evil. They should be taxed out of existence. You know how they're all raking in the cash in this great economy of ours.
And, contrary to what this ad implies and what the Obama campaign has been saying forever, McCain has no specific plan for lowering taxes on oil companies. The tax savings Obama sites for oil companies is simply the result of lowering the overall corporate tax rate. But if you believe Obama, you'd think McCain wanted to specifically lower the taxes on oil companies, which is not true.
The Associated Press actually has a good article outlining the issues involved:
McCain does call for a reduction in corporate taxes, from 35 percent now to 25 percent after 2014. But at least one Obama economic adviser has indicated that Obama himself might be open to a lower corporate tax rate — though not as low as McCain has recommended.
In an interview with Forbes.com last month, Jason Furman, Obama's director of economic policy, said: "He would like to cut the corporate tax rate, and it's a question that we're studying." In June, Obama also told The Wall Street Journal he might support a cut in corporate taxes. Still, Obama's economic plan aims the largest cuts toward lower-income taxpayers while McCain would give the largest tax cuts to high-income taxpayers.
The $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies is simply part of McCain's overall corporate tax reduction plan and does not represent an additional tax benefit. In other words, the corporate tax reduction applies to all corporations, oil companies included. Both Obama and McCain have proposed eliminating oil and gas tax loopholes.
Interesting, so Obama would also be in favor of reducing taxes on the "big corporations?" Of course I'm sure he'd find a way to exclude oil companies. We simply can't have companies being too successful in the United States. His plan would probably make companies with a high profit margin pay more taxes. Oh wait, that wouldn't work, since the profit margin of the oil companies is actually lower than many other industries.
And, according to the AP, both Obama and McCain have proposed eliminating the oil and gas tax loopholes.
Obama at the Veterans of Foreign Affairs convention:
A couple of things here:
1) McCain disagreed with the "low footprint" strategy from the beginning, and advocated for more troops long before Bush agreed with him. So yes, Obama, the success of the surge does vindicate him. Before the surge, we were in a lot of trouble. After the surge, things got better. That proves he was right. Just like Obama never got to see "what would have happened" had we withdrawn instead of surged, we also don't know how much better this situation could have been had we followed McCain's advice from the beginning.
2) Obama continues to support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and has been strengthening his position by claiming that others are now supporting it, even, to some extent, McCain and Bush (who refers to this as a "time horizon"). He artistically paints the picture that he was years ahead on this issue, and now the rest of the world is catching up, and proving he was right. Let me illustrate how this is wrong with a little story:
Dr. Smith is discussing the condition of his patient, Mrs. Jones, with his colleague, Dr. Roberts.
Dr. Roberts: "She is very sick, and everything you are doing seems to be just making things worse. You should just discharge her as soon as possible. She would be better off out of this hospital."
Dr. Smith: "No, I think we need to treat her more aggressively. I'm going to do a surgical procedure. It is risky, but I think it will work and if we don't do it, she will die. I have a responsibility to try to help her."
The two doctors argue for a while, but since Mrs. Jones is Dr. Smith's patient, he eventually wins. The surgery will be performed.
A week after the surgery, Mrs. Smith is doing much better, although not completely healed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Roberts meet again:
Dr. Smith: "Mrs. Jones is doing much better. I think we can discharge her soon with a clean bill of health."
Dr. Roberts: "I'm glad you are coming around to my way of thinking. I thought we should do that a long time ago."
Perhaps this is a silly story, but it illustrates how I view the debate over timetables in Iraq. Being "ahead of your time" is not always a good thing, Mr. Obama. If you argue that we should get out of Iraq, then it is only a matter of time before you will be right, of course, just as if you were to argue that it is cold outside.
Even if this is true, the idea that every single American with low tire pressure is going to go and fill up their tires just because the president says they should is crazy. He may be right, but if it never happens then the oil is not saved. And in any case, why does this mean we can't drill? If we can save just as much oil by filling up are tires as we can by drilling, then why not do both and save oil while producing more at the same time? Why do we need to choose between the two?
Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin) -- I gave him some credit that what he's saying might technically be true, although irrelevant to the drilling debate.
Posts
