Obama vs. McCain

As the primaries begin, the odds are that the race will be Barack Obama (D) vs. John McCain (R). Taking the long view, this is a beneficial development since this slate will obviate the need for me to put my house up for sale during the current Michigan economic depression. I can live with either of these guys as president. Romney or Huckabee get elected? I’m not sure I can pay taxes to a republic that could elect such people. Seriously.

For no other reason than Hugh Hewitt thinks Romney will be the next president, I now know that the Mittster is history. From the Iraq war to immigration to tax cuts, HH has been so wrong on so many opinions and prognostications that the mind boggles. Hewitt’s brand of stupid is the same that brought us 8 years of Dubya and, if you’re old enough, 6 ½ years of Nixon. It’s amazing to me that someone can actually make a living as a political pundit with such a track record of ineptitude about politics.

If you’re thinking Mitt Romney is your guy, then you probably aren’t informed about his shameless bloviating and prevarication. But then, Republican voters don’t seem to care much about such piffle.

So that leaves us Saint John McCain to win New Hampshire because there is no way those voters will go for the underlying insanity that is Mike Huckabee. An evangelical minister in the White House? Haven’t we already done the Dumb and Misinformed Guy as President thing, and isn’t it playing out as a disaster? The staid New Hampshire voters will put a stunning halt to the ersatz Huckabee juggernaut, which is proof enough that there is indeed a God.

No matter. If Iowa is any evidence, a Republican winning the Presidency in November has about as much chance as Barry Bonds being the next CEO of Pfizer. Over 70% of the votes cast in the primaries and caucuses were for Democratic candidates, so this country’s conservative heartland obviously ain’t buying the GOP’s bullshit anymore. (You may have asked, what the hell took them so long...?) This is the first time in modern history that both the Republican and Democratic primaries have been contested during the same presidential election, so history of sorts was made.

If I had to vote today with the current choices* still in the race, I’d rank them thusly:

1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. McCain
4. Paul
5. Richardson
6. Edwards
7. Move to Canada, Cost Rica or Australia.

Michigan is a cross-over state, which means that voters can choose which party’s primary participate in, and may cross over to vote for any candidate in either party. Any of the Democratic presidential candidates will be fine, so just as in 2000, I may choose to vote for John McCain in the primary in order to do my part to prevent another presidential disaster (or a capital loss on my house.)

*Sadly, Dodd and Biden, either of whom would have made an excellent candidate, have pulled out of the race as of Friday.

McCain: Constitution Establishes A "Christian Nation"

(this item is stolen verbatim from Georgia10 at Dailykos. Disclosure: I voted for Sen. McCain in the 2000 Republican primary in an overwhelming sentiment of Anyone But Bush, which is allowed by Michigan law, and I stand by that vote- Grodge.)

Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

Republican John McCain in an interview with Beliefnet:

Q: A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?

A: I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, "I only welcome Christians." We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

Just for giggles, let's actually look at the text of the Constitution, shall we?

Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See? Obviously, the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. God & Jesus are all over that document. Or hidden in its fibers. Or something. Because when the founders wrote "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification" for public office, they meant there's no need to test all the good Christians who are elevated to public office. After all, Americans wouldn't vote for someone that didn't already know the Bible chapter and verse, right?

And of course, since America is a Christian nation, Muslims will have to work extra hard to get McCain's vote:

Q: Has the candidates’ personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race?

A: Questions about that are very legitimate.... And it's also appropriate for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that's sort of a private matter between me and my Creator.... But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

Q: It doesn't seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard.

A: I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what's basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would--I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead.*

See that little asterisk? When McCain's campaign saw his shocking words in print, they contacted Beliefnet to "clarify" his statements:

*McCain contacted Beliefnet after the interview to clarify his remarks: "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values."

So, McCain would vote for someone who follows "the Islam," as long as they, by his own words, "carry on the Judeo-Christian principles" that McCain believes this nation was founded upon.

Well then. That settles it.

Onward, Christian warriors! There's a primary to be won! Just hope that no one points out the pandering along the way:

Beliefnet columnist David Kuo said McCain was "pandering to what he thinks the Christian conservative community wants to hear" and predicted he "will have a lot of explaining to do about this interview."

(from Georgia10 at Dailykos)

McCain's Inharmonious Song Stylings

That sound you hear is the McCain Straight Talk Express going “boom.”

One of the more poignant bloggers today is The Cunning Realist. Aside from his less than humble name, he/she has an uncanny way of finding the appropriate analogy to a current event. The latest flap involving Senator McCain's joke about bombing Iran left me reticent to jump on the left-leaning bandwagon of castigation. Was is merely an off-hand remark-- a joke-- served up as red meat for the faithful at a campaign event? Perhaps.

But TCR put a nice frame on it:

Scenario: China, the world's preeminent superpower, invades and occupies Canada on a false pretense and lets it descend into civil war. The U.S., a developing nation without nuclear weapons, watches from next door. Then a senior Chinese official who could soon be the country's next president starts singing songs about "bombing the U.S." at political rallies. He gets laughs and applause.

As an American, would you or would you not demand that Washington develop the ultimate deterrent against that madness?

There may have been a time when the United States had some moral authority in the world, and we can debate as to when such authority began to wane: our imperial conquests during the Spanish-American War, the displacement of millions of Palestinians in 1948, our overthrow of various popular leaders in 1953 Iran, 1960's Central America and Vietnam, our attempted coup in 1961 Cuba, or our continued misadventures in nation-building.

Regardless, from any perspective outside of our own jingoist self-aggrandizement, the current US foreign policy is a disaster of epic proportion. This may be how empires end. I'm not a historian, but I can imagine some Roman Senator in 300 or 400 CE joking about the perceived ineptitude of the barbarian Visigoths to the loud guffaws of his civilized constituents. Administration apologists, of which McCain is one, are quick to show much feigned concern for how dissent will play into our enemies' hands. How do jokes about pointless aggression and murder play?

John McCain's past history puts him clearly in the category of hero. He has my respect for his past service to our country, his unquestioned loyalty and bravery so many years ago. But a President McCain? I think not.

Iraq Quagmire: Option I

The Iraq Study Group is busily putting the finishing touches on their final report that is supposedly going to save Boy Bush's hide and his presidency. Usually when such a council is set up it is purely for political cover, in other words the president has already decided on “the plan”, and the expert panel is merely configured to add credibility to “the plan.” In this case, however, I don't think Bush is pursuing the panel's advice for the expediency of political cover. I believe Bush really doesn't know what to do. We'll help him consider his options.

George W. Bush deserves our compassion. Seeing him recently meeting with Vietnamese leaders I was struck by how vulnerable and pathetic he looked. His hair grayer, his brow more furrowed, Bush did not seem to have the same irrepressible joviality. He apparently saw no irony in bluntly stating that Iraq is no Vietnam while being entertained in a beautifully manicured palace in the heart of Hanoi. He's right, Iraq is leagues worse.

What to do in Iraq? There are really only two courses to consider: Go heavy, or go home. The American people are weary of this debacle and the president has been derelict in his duty of planning and fighting this war. The time for making this decision is years late. Be that as it may, when the ISG comes out with their recommendations, the president should not expect a silver bullet. There is none, and none will be forthcoming.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has recently taken the Barry Goldwater stance that the USA has a responsibility to the people of Iraq and we should fulfill this obligation by sending more troops in an overwhelming effort to achieve stability. Of course, he conveniently never puts a number on that additional force, but I'm sure it would need to be in the hundreds of thousands. From McCain's recent op-ed:

“We must be honest about the war in Iraq. Without additional combat forces we will not win. We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.

They will not be easy to find. We should have begun to increase significantly the size of the Army and Marine Corps the day after 9/11. But we did not. So we must turn again to those Americans and their families who have already sacrificed so much in this cause. That is a very hard thing to do. But if we intend to win, then we must.

It is not fair or easy to look a soldier in the eye and tell him he must shoulder a rifle again and risk his life in a third tour in Iraq. As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq. And he will go, not happily perhaps, but he will go because he and his comrades are the first patriots among us. But I can only ask him if I share his commitment to victory.”

On one level, I share McCain's sentiment that the Iraqi people deserve our forthright attempt at achieving a livable resolution to the conflict that we started. The question McCain never answers is what it would take to send the necessary troops. The troop levels in Iraq (I'm not even considering the Afghan disaster) have ranged from 125K earlier this year to approximately 145K now after the president canceled the tour leaves of several thousand Marines, National Guard and Army troops. We know this isn't enough to fulfill McCain's plan. The current military has approximately 1 million men and women, of which 1/5 can be deployed at any given time. To get the requisite 400K combat ready soldiers to make up an overwhelming contingent, we would need 2 million active duty. In effect, we would need to double the size of the military immediately, and that would also mean immense outlays for equipment.

Where can McCain get troops? We have already lowered recruitment standards, paid unprecedented sign-on bonuses, and canceled honorable discharges in order to keep men and women in uniform. McCain has no words of advice, except to “ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq.” McCain doesn't answer how many will say, “No, thank you” and how many times will he need to ask that “young Marine” again and again?

In the reality-based world, the only way to acquire enough soldiers to put 400K into Iraq is to dust off the military draft. Indeed, the draft. Literally millions of young men have already signed up for conscription, we already have their names, and the president only has to get the computer to spit out a few hundred thousand random birth dates, and voila! We have a huge frickin' Army. Instantly.

If McCain's stance is actually agreed upon, as long as we are indulging our fantasies, I would add one more recommendation: the only fair thing to do would be to first ask anyone under 30 years-old who voted for Bush in 2004 to do the responsible thing, the patriotic thing, the moral thing. They should be asked to enlist voluntarily and take infantry assignments. If they believe in this war, then we should give them the opportunity to walk the walk.

After all, what would be fair in drafting those who may have voted against this radical administration in the first place? Send them to war? No way. George W. Bush has saved us all from the dreaded weapons of mass destruction, he has bravely rescued Iraq from Saddam, and now our "crusade" has hit a few bumps in the road. Sen McCain is generously offering a solution-- and the very least these young Republicans can do is offer to serve.

Next post, we'll discuss the traitors who want to “cut and run.”