“We’re delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama,” said spokesman Brian Rogers, adding that the press should focus on Obama’s house. “It’s a frickin’ mansion.”
–McCain spokesman Brian Rogers
I’m assuming there will be a drastic reduction in the number of “Obama is an elitist” statements in the coming days — John McCain can’t remember how many homes he owns.
Incidentally, Cindy McCain needs to be on Boniva™ STAT!
UPDATE:
Jesus. Mary. And Joseph. The McCain campaign is using the arugula-egghead-POW defense. McCain camp spokesman Brian Rogers on domicile-gate:
“This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years — in prison,” referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.
Rogers called the house story “by far the most personal attack” of the campaign, and said “it comes from a candidate who said he was against this kind of thing.”
He predicted that the story would not “stick” with the American people.
“In terms of who’s an elitist, I think people have made a judgment that John McCain is not an arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type based on his life story.”
So polls show that “white voters” think that Barack Obama is a “risky” choice for president. The real risk we face right now is that a McCain presidency will be far too much like a third Bush term (I just shuddered writing those words), and that American militarism could spin further out of control (right, Condi?)
Max Bergmann explains why Oily McWar is the real risk:
The big concern with a McCain presidency – a concern which I am surprised has not been vocalized more fully – is that the U.S. will lurch from crisis to crisis, confrontation to confrontation, whether it be with Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. The danger is that McCain’s pundit-like rhetoric will entrap the U.S. in descending spiral of foreign policy brinksmanship. Just think about the very likely scenario of McCain giving Iran/Russia a rhetorical ultimatum and Iran/Russia ignoring it. Now we are stuck - either we lose face by not following through on our threats or we follow through and go to war. We can’t afford such a reckless approach after the last eight years. For the next eight we need a president not a pundit.
Speaking as a white guy (seriously - I’m mad white), I think it is time for “white voters” to grow up and realize that the best candidate for president isn’t just the guy who seems the most militaristic. Or the whitest.
I was going to comment on this but all I could make my fingers type was “Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha”:
“Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that’s its military power,” [Condi] Rice told reporters en route to an emergency meeting of NATO foreign ministers set for Tuesday. “That’s not the way to deal in the 21st century.”
So when you’re on the ropes and its time to come out fighting, the political handbook states: “attack a nonexistent constituency that you can tie to your opponent.” On the McCain report, Michael Goldfarb writes that McCain didn’t lift any lines from Solzhenitsyn as he simultaneously waxed Georgian and prisoner-of-war, what are you talking about? The real issue is this:
It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman’s memory of war from the comfort of mom’s basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others.
Wargaming nerds in black, tight fitting t-shirts take that! Don’t hate Obama because his Charisma score makes him a more powerful orc slayer than you. You can forget my vote in November Mr. McCain. Oh, and mom, can you bring down some more lemonade–make that hateorade– for me and the boys?
I’ve been hatin’ on John McCain a lot lately.
Well, I just took another sip of hateorade.
This time, it is the ridiculous hypocrisy of Oily McWar’s August 18th VFW speech that is so grating:
Addressing the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars this morning in Orlando, John McCain came down harshly on rival Barack Obama for on his position and opinion on the Iraq war.
So what’s new?
This: McCain takes a new tack in tying Obama’s positions on the war to his personal desire to be president. “Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president.” (bold type added)
Hm.
In his memoir Worth the Fighting For (which is an awkward title, no?), McWar explained his own run for president in 2000 this way:
“I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.” (bold type added)
These anti-McCain blog posts just write themselves! I think that unless ol’ Oily takes a vow of silence, and soon, he might just talk his way into second place in the election. If anyone pays attention, that is.
This is curious. And so is this. Perhaps the most interesting of all.
One Texas school district is seeking greater realism in their Alamo pedagogy:
The tiny Harrold, Texas, school district will allow teachers and staff members to carry concealed firearms when they return to class this month.
The superintendent said they’re a 30-minute drive from the Wilbarger County Sheriff’s Office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started.“
No word yet on whether the post hoc ergo prompter hoc after school program will be eliminated from the school budget.
One of the more annoying behaviors of our political pundit class is the wholesale substitution of their own views for those of “the voters,” or “the military,” or “soccer moms,” or “people who drink beer.” When a talking head states that “the voters” don’t care about a candidate’s age or that “the military” doesn’t trust a candidate who favors diplomacy, they describe large, diverse populations as if they were homogeneous, unified groups. Utterances such as these magically make all diversity and complexity disappear into a smoky cloud of generality.
It’s like those real estate shows on HGTV where an anonymous real estate maven tells a pair of nervous homeowners that “the buyer” wants an open floor plan, or granite counter tops, or stainless appliances, or a neutral color for the bedroom walls. Who is “the buyer”? Not me. My bedroom wall has a mural depicting the life of Red Auerbach. Suck on that, buyers.
Pundits who parrot such an essentializing discourse perform a grave disservice to our national conversation on important — even critical — issues as they utterly misrepresent the true nature and variety of opinion in favor of a reductive shorthand. But since that is easier than doing research or conducting surveys — you know, reporting — we can be certain that “the reporters” will pretty much stink it up forever.
Hey, here’s a good example I found today on the website Open Secrets. Turns out one of the best-kept secrets of the 2008 election is that “the military” isn’t really giving a lot of their hard-earned, tax-free, wartime dollars to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — even though everyone knows that “the military” supports the conservative candidate automatically. In fact, as it turns out, “the military” seems to be giving more money to the Democratic nominee for president this time around. A lot more:
According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain [. . .]
And significantly, this isn’t only the case with the military personnel who’ve been getting shot at and blown up in war zones:
Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall — whether stationed overseas or at home — are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.
Seems to me that this should be a pretty big story. Or at least make it to the news ticker at the bottom of my screen. Nope, Man Catches Fish.
I wonder what’s on “My House is Worth WHAT??”
