Did the gloves come off?
Politics — By Rachel Motte on October 15, 2008 at 10:37 pmMaybe.
McCain’s performance in this debate was better than in those previous. Will this be enough to close the gap between him and Senator Obama? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, it’s clear that Joe the plumber was the real winner here.
McCain was careful to distance himself from President Bush. His ‘If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago’ was one of the best lines of the evening. Much as I’d like to tell you that substance will always trump rhetoric, the truth is that soundbites really matter in an election, so this line was important.
Obama was cool, calm, and collected throughout the evening, almost to the point of detachment. McCain was controlled, but visibly passionate. Some will think that Obama’s demeanor indicated a sort of academic objectivity, but others will be pleased that McCain recognizes the place of moral outrage as the most powerful motivating force in politics.
On the question of negative campaigning, McCain stated that the tone of the campaign might have been different if Obama had agreed to his numerous debate invitations earlier in the campaign. The ensuing discussion put Obama on the defense as McCain asked him point blank to repudiate charges of McCain/Palin racism and segregationalism. After a discussion of McCain’s own negative tactics, Obama never really answered the charge. Many will say that McCain should have pushed him on it more.
Despite Senator Obama’s statement that his controversial connections to Bill Ayres have been the center of McCain’s campaign in recent days, some conservatives will be disappointed that McCain didn’t make more mention of Obama’s several questionable associations.
Obama’s repeated assertions that “we all need to work together” were a little ironic given his very consistent record of voting with his party, particularly when McCain is so well known for voting according to his own line rather than any party line.
Obama clearly denied his his votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Trouble is, his vote is a matter of record.
And Joe the plumber? If McCain is smart, we’ll be hearing a lot more about Joe right up to election day.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
43 Comments
Incisive post. My opinion is McCain is a moderate, and he may have distanced himself from Bush but he still has let himself be redefined by the media as a right-wing conservative. I personally would prefer him to be a right-winger, but he is not yet has not fought it.
McCain is done. He is coming across as an angry, condescending old man. I will probably vote for him but I found myself disliking him last nite. The GOP has done this to itself. They had a chance with the Congressional majority and the presidency but they blew it. They spent more and expanded the size of government even more than the Democrats would have. Now we’ll never get another conservative on the SC to help overturn Roe before God avenges the unborn. It’s on the GOP, lying hypocrites all.
Very enlightening comment by an evangelical woman. I found it truly inspiring and in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Check it out.
http://evangelicalsforobama.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/my-thoughts-on-the-election-video/
Great post!
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
It looks like McCain is using Joe the Plummer, but the media blitzkrieg in the form of a liberal smear campaign has been unreal.
Jon,
I think McCain has gone to great lengths to try to redefine himself as a right-winger for this election, but your right, I think he’s more of a moderate, assuming he even fits in a category!
Stan,
I’m not a big fan of McCain, either, but he’s the best we’ve got right now. I don’t think that means we’re through yet, but I do think it means the GOP has got to get its act together quickly.
Shane,
Seriously, go Joe the plumber! I wonder if he had any idea of the firestorm he was getting himself into? I have to wonder what this is doing for his business. He’s fairly well-spoken and seems bright (not that I can tell much from the few seconds of soundbites I’ve heard), enough so that if I needed a plumber I’d sure call him. If his business hasn’t passed Obama’s magic tax number already it will after all this free advertising…
“Joe the plumber” is more meaningless drivel from the McCain “campaign.”
Niether candidate answered the question concerning negative ads. A question asked by the moderater, not McCain. McCain/Palin attack ads and stump speaches are far more negative than Obama’s.
McCain says “we” have to have “compassion” for any woman faced with the “decision” of birth or abort. What decision? Under McCain’s policies (assuming they might someday have the force of law), such a woman would have no decision to make, since McCain and/or the government would make it for her.
“Moral outrage?” Where does anyone in this campaign get off being morally outraged? McCain has supported and continues to support a pointless war that has killed hundreds of thousands. That’s men, women, and LIVING children.
Do we really want to start trotting out McCain’s 20+ years of “associations” (starting with Palin)?
This used to be an interesting and thoughtful blog. What happened?
“Joe the plumber” is more meaningless drivel from the McCain “campaign.”
Niether candidate answered the question concerning negative ads. A question asked by the moderater, not McCain. McCain/Palin attack ads and stump speaches are far more negative than Obama’s.
McCain says “we” have to have “compassion” for any woman faced with the “decision” of birth or abort. What decision? Under McCain’s policies (assuming they might someday have the force of law), such a woman would have no decision to make, since McCain and/or the government would make it for her.
“Moral outrage?” Where does anyone in this campaign get off being morally outraged? McCain has supported and continues to support a pointless war that has killed hundreds of thousands. That’s men, women, and LIVING children.
Do we really want to start trotting out McCain’s 20+ years of “associations” (starting with Palin)?
This used to be an interesting and thoughtful blog. What happened?
“Joe the plumber” is more meaningless drivel from the McCain “campaign.”
Niether candidate answered the question concerning negative ads. A question asked by the moderater, not McCain. McCain/Palin attack ads and stump speaches are far more negative than Obama’s.
McCain says “we” have to have “compassion” for any woman faced with the “decision” of birth or abort. What decision? Under McCain’s policies (assuming they might someday have the force of law), such a woman would have no decision to make, since McCain and/or the government would make it for her.
“Moral outrage?” Where does anyone in this campaign get off being morally outraged? McCain has supported and continues to support a pointless war that has killed hundreds of thousands. That’s men, women, and LIVING children.
Do we really want to start trotting out McCain’s 20+ years of “associations” (starting with Palin)?
This used to be an interesting and thoughtful blog. What happened?
Sorry ’bout that repeated post! Don’t know what happened. . .
. . . and my spelling sucks . . .
Would that be the war against alQaeda? That is the only war we got going on now.
There is a war against alQaeda? Where?
Have you been in a coma since 9/11/2001?
Have you?
Are you unable to understand sarcasm?
Do you really think our “war” in Iraq has any chance of defeating alQaeda? Do you really think it ever had anything to do, really, with alQeada? Do you really think the killings/deaths of 4000+ American soldiers, including my brother, and countless Iraqi civilians - men, women, and children - is an acceptable price to pay to wage “war” on alQeada?
How does one defeat terrorists?
What a silly notion. The war in Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein. It did, then the war with Iraq was over. After that, alQeada started operations in Iraq. They chose to fight us there, they chose to die there. You would perhaps prefer the battleground with alQaeda to be on American soil in the same fashion as 9/11/2001? Have you no compassion for your fellow civilians?
“The war in Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein.”
I thought it was about WMDs. After Saddam was deposed, the war continued because of insurgents, lest we forget. It was this resistance that encouraged al Qaeda to enter the fray.
“They chose to fight us there, they chose to die there.”
Maybe that is because we are there to be fought.
“You would perhaps prefer the battleground with alQaeda to be on American soil in the same fashion as 9/11/2001?”
Very simpleminded either/or fallacy. Do you really think they are holding back because we are in Iraq? Do you not think they would attack us here if they could?
“Have you no compassion for your fellow civilians?”
When all else fails, accuse your opponent of a lack of patriotism, compassion, or whatever the virtue du jour happens to be.
Maybe Boonton is right.
This discussion seems to have taken a few zig-zags (right and left turns). Be that as it may, I’d like to interject one thought germane to the original post: Obama, as evidenced by his self-serving, pontificating, illuminati, non-answers to debate questions (and his all-too-truthful response to Joe the Plumber), is a neo-Marxist power-monger who is set on remaking America in man’s fallen image.
Well, that would be the narrative that would allow you to think yourself morally superior. Unfortunately for that narrative though, after Germany was conquered in 1945, there were insurgents that fought us still, but that did not mean we were still at war with Germany. I hope you are not a history teacher. Freeing Iraq was never JUST about WMDs, and AQI was more than likely already in place before the insurgency. Certainly their initial leader was. They probably share as much responsibility for the insurgency as anybody else over there.
Where would you prefer the fighting take place? On U.S. soil or elsewhere? You suggest I am using a fallacy, yet ignore the fallacy in the thinking that says we are incapable of engaging in a multiple front war but alQaeda is not. Yes, I think alQaeda would attack us here if they could, that is why I ask which you would prefer. Logistically speaking, it is much easier for them to operate in the Iraqi theater than here. But if they were no longer occupied in Iraq by our military (and the nascent Iraqi military), they would be able to direct their not unlimited resources to more effect on our soil. I’m so glad you are not a Flag Officer in our military.
It was a rhetorical question, not an accusation. Can’t you tell the difference?
Why are evangelical’s republicans? Pro Guns, Pro War and big military, Pro wealthy/big business, anti environment, pro discriminating against gays. As much as I am against gay marriage, I don’t think Jesus would have advocated that people who are gay don’t deserve the same fundamental rights that you or I do. There is a separation of church and state in this country for a reason, and it is because the entire basis for the establishment of our country was to be free to practice whatever religion we choose. Our job as Christians is to go out and teach about the love of Jesus, and we too often forget that He has the power to change people’s lives once we help lead them to Him. We are to bring people to the savior through love, kindness, and tolerance, not through protests and rallies. It is not our job to do it through public policy and politics. It is time to remember that abortion isn’t the only moral question in our society today. More children have been killed by our bombs and our neglect in impoverished countries than by abortion. Wake up Christians. The question is “What Would Jesus Do,” not “Who would Jesus bomb.”
“It was a rhetorical question, not an accusation.”
It was both.
“Where would you prefer the fighting take place?”
Wherever we find them. We don’t need to occupy a country to do that. Naturally, I would prefer that no fighting take place in our country, but, as I stated, it is not an either/or thing; not fighting them in Iraq does not mean that they will shrug and say, “Hmm…where did the infidels go? Let’s go to America.” That’s what Bush has been saying for years, and some idiots believe it.
“I hope you are not a history teacher…I’m so glad you are not a Flag Officer in our military.”
I hope you aren’t a parent.
James wrote: “It is time to remember that abortion isn’t the only moral question in our society today. More children have been killed by our bombs and our neglect in impoverished countries than by abortion.”
Abortion isn’t the only moral question, but despite his claims to the contrary, Obama isn’t going to make it easier on pregnant women in crisis situations. He’s consistently voted against proposals of the pro-life DEMOCRATS to make it easier on women in crisis situations (e.g. extending SCHIP to prenatal care), prior to and after the pregnancy. His voting record shows he isn’t as commited as he claims to helping neglected children. His record shows he’d rather “remove” them in advance.
As far as your assertion of abortion being a lesser killer, what is your evidence that this is this true?
Fact is there’s been about 40 million people killed by abortion in the US since 1973. That dwarfs casualties of all wars except WWII (even WWI had an estimated 18M casualties, civilian and military, all sides combined). The fact is abortion is an affront to human rights of monumental and unprecedented proportions. And the fact is, Obama is one of the most strident supporters, ever, of its unrestricted continuation.
Yes, there are a horrible number of civilian casualties in Iraq. But Obama wants to get more “boots on the ground” in central Asia (Afganistan/Pakistan), so he’s no isolationist that’s going to prevent our involvement in civilian deaths overseas.
So the real difference between the two comes down to abortion. And there, the difference is clear.
Wishing doesn’t always make it so.
What? Roving bands of hunter/killers that roam around the world with unrestricted access to take out the terrorists? How naive. They are in Iraq too, and you apparently don’t think it makes sense to fight them there. Or maybe you subscribe to the notion that they only went there because our troops did and they would leave the Iraqis to self-rule if we would just get the heck out of Dodge. Ask the Saudis how that worked for them after we pulled all our troops out of their country.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are right about the terrorists leaving Iraq if we do. Next, all they have to do is start a battle with us where ever we have troops that they can get to easily and you and your buddies will start whining about how many people are being killed. You’ll want us to pull out of that country too. It’ll work like lined up dominoes. Eventually, there would only be one place left for them to attack.
“Eventually, there would only be one place left for them to attack.”
I think if we kept our hands off in the Middle East, these guys would cease to exist. Fires go out when deprived of fuel. Our support for Israel is one of our biggest foreign policy problems. It planted the seeds of distrust among Arabs.
The oil is going to run out in a couple of generations, and these guys will be back to selling carpets. I can’t believe how frightened of them some people are.
“Eventually, there would only be one place left for them to attack.”
I think if we kept our hands off in the Middle East, these guys would cease to exist. Fires go out when deprived of fuel. Our support for Israel is one of our biggest foreign policy problems. It planted the seeds of distrust among Arabs.
The oil is going to run out in a couple of generations, and these guys will be back to selling carpets. I can’t believe how frightened of them some people are.
Do you mean frightened as in thinking they will just leave us alone if we stay out of the Middle East and abandon our ally Israel?
No, that’s is not what I mean as you well know. I’m talking about people so frightened of fire that they try to extinguish it with gasoline.
If there were no such thing as Islamist terrorism, I would still want to “abandon” Israel.
Okay, given your comment, I guess it is safe to assume that don’t see appeasing the terrorists (and the Arabs was it) with respect to keeping our hands off in the Middle East as abandoning Israel. Either you are just totally naive about what the terrorists want with regard to the Middle East, or you have a death wish for Israel. I certainly cannot envision an atheist such as yourself having faith in God protecting his chosen people from a genocidal campaign that no nation appeared interested in stopping.
I’m not interested in appeasement; I’m interested in justice. The Israel/ Arab relationship is more complicated that Israel good and Arab bad. I don’t feel Israel should ever have been recognized as a sovereign nation, let alone supported militarily. I wouldn’t like to see it taken over, for its people’s sake, but I see that as their problem. If a peaceful solution can be worked out, fine, but it will take pressure on the Israelis as well as the Arab world to make that happen. Israel has shown itself an intransigent party to negotiation.
Let’s try this: a divided Jerusalem, Israel pulling back entirely to pre-67 borders, no right of Palestinian return. If they won’t agree to that, they must prefer continued existence with a certain permanent level of violence. Let them deal with that on their own.
U.S. foreign policy should be concerned with U.S. interests. Israel is more a liability than an asset.
That’s clever of you to throw in what the Palestinians say is a deal breaker (no right of return). It’s almost as if you would prefer to see a sustained level of violence anyway. What’s with that? Want to see those upstart Israelis punished?
“That’s clever of you to throw in what the Palestinians say is a deal breaker (no right of return).”
What people say in negotiations and what they ultimately agree to are often different. Obviously, given the prodigious rate at which Palestinians have increased their number in the last sixty years or so, Israel cannot offer citizenship to all who would desire it; they would be overwhelmed. We won’t know how Palestinians would respond to my suggestion until Israel makes it. So far, Israel has not even lived up to their commitments in the Oslo accords.
“It’s almost as if you would prefer to see a sustained level of violence anyway.”
Always ready to assume the worst of your opponent, aren’t you? I would be delighted if a peaceful solution were found, but I am not optimistic. Some Arabs will undoubtedly never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East, and their position is not hard to understand. Perhaps the best hope is that their hopes die with them, leaving in place a peaceful, if unjust, resolution, as in the sad case of the Native Americans and so many other displaced and dispossessed peoples..
So now you want me to believe that you have no animus toward Israel? After you stated they are liability instead of asset. How many others of our allies do you consider liabilities instead of assets? None, some, or all?
Good luck proving that the Palestinians even began to either. If I remember correctly, the Oslo accords was the excuse cited by Arafat for the Intifada.
“So now you want me to believe that you have no animus toward Israel? After you stated they are liability instead of asset.”
Asset/liability considerations need not involve animus; I would say most do not. At any rate, my feelings about the state of Israel could never be so negative that I would wish violence upon its people.
“How many others of our allies do you consider liabilities instead of assets? None, some, or all?”
So far, only Israel. Watch out for former Soviet Socialist Republics, though. I wish them the best, but I’m not willing to fight Russia on their behalf.
I agree, asset/liability considerations need not involve animus, and since most don’t involve people or nations, then it probably doesn’t. But when it does involve the safety or lives of people, as in your stated consideration, I don’t see how a person can come down on the same side as you did without either animus or cruel disregard for the potentiality for violence.
“I don’t see how a person can come down on the same side as you did without either animus or cruel disregard for the potentiality for violence.”
Is there a side I could come down on that would preclude violence? What is your perfect solution to the Usrael/Palestine question?
I didn’t think so. My side shows no more “disregard for the potentiality of violence” than any other.
I suppose then that you can show me evidence that Israelis publicly proclaim that one or more of their neighboring nations should be wiped from the face of the map, or evidence that Israeli men and women strap explosives to themselves and find weddings and hotels and malls filled with Palestinians or Arabs to blow themselves up, or evidence that Israeli schools are teaching their grade schoolers that Arabs or Palestinians are the root of all evil in the world?
Well, as we can see, McCain has played up Obama’s gaffe with Joe the Plumber, to his gain. Are sensible people being duped into believing Obama is a unifier who will lower their taxes and refuse to play partisan politics? No, it’s the naive hangers-on who want something for nothing that the liberal illuminati elitists have suckered in. I am hopeful there are too few of them to throw the election for Obama.
smm: “I suppose then that you can show me evidence…”
That doesn’t answer my question. Not that I’m surprised.
Becky Ford: “No, it’s the naive hangers-on who want something for nothing that the liberal illuminati elitists have suckered in.”
One of the ways I identify nutbags is the characteristic use of the word “illuminati.” Congratulations, Becky.
I’ll presume the question you are referring to is the same one that I referenced in my previous comment. You framed the question hoping to trap me into an indefensible response. The trap is that there is no way to make violence impossible; there is no way to head off violence in advance when one party is not rational. I don’t think rational people plot murder/suicide bombings. If you think that the Palestinians are rational, you probably don’t see it that way.
Coming down on the side of being an ally to Israel will not preclude irrational suicidal murderers from committing violence, but it will preclude semi-rational sociopathic murderers from committing violence until they begin to believe nobody would interfere. Coming down on the side of not being an ally to Israel almost guarantees an escalation of violence, not to mention that it would demoralize a one-time friend. But if we were not an ally to Israel, and if they had to go it alone, they would by necessity defend themselves more aggressively.
You feel sorry for the Palestinians now? Wait until Israel has no reason to show any restraint in defending themselves.
As for your other question, the perfect resolution to the Israel/Palestinian equation - evaluate each and every Palestinian for institutionalization in a mental hospital, lock all the violence prone psycho/sociopaths up and then let the rest of the Palestinians show them and the rest of the world how remarkably easy the Israelis get along with Palestinians when they are treated respectably and aren’t being blown up in their malls and their pizza shops.
But that will never happen with people defending the sociopathic behavior of the Palestinians as rational and acceptable.
“Coming down on the side of not being an ally to Israel almost guarantees an escalation of violence, not to mention that it would demoralize a one-time friend.”
So we should make our alliances based solely upon a minimalization of violence and hurt feelings with no regard to justice?
“But that will never happen with people defending the sociopathic behavior of the Palestinians as rational and acceptable.”
But of course no one is doing that.
No, we should make our alliances based on mutual benefit. That means allying ourselves with people like the Israelis and not the Palestinians.
Keep telling yourself that. I’m sure it helps you rationalize your desire to break our alliance with Israel.
zbsrd esnmgkcjl hwgdk aysvri mabgsfqr znxvahem bzwklo
zbsrd esnmgkcjl hwgdk aysvri mabgsfqr znxvahem bzwklo