41 Comments

• 1. Rana Quijotesca  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am

  Wait wait wait wait wait… You are going to call massive government spending “Liberal”??? Wasn’t it Republicans who let PAY-GO expire, the tool that lead to the budget surpluses of the late 1990’s? Wasn’t it the Republicans who let Discretionary Spending balloon more than 40% during Bush’s first term? Face it… Republicans are all about talking the talk about fiscal responsibility… but when they have two branches of government… they just go to town with their kids’ credit card…

• 2. phil  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am

  One presumes that you would prefer a restoration of the status quo ante with a Republican White House and a Republican Congressional majority. In the clear light of reflection, the first 6 Bush years will be seen as as dark a period in the history of this nation as any similar 6 year period preceeding (and hopefully following). All but the severely intellectually limited are wishing, hoping, begging for a change. We got part way there when Bush lost his majority in Congress. Without a doubt the removal of Bush in January 09 will be a great day for humanity regardless of the name and party affilliation of the new persident.

  OK, so where am I going with all this…Mark, you spent your recent history as one of the Bush Administrations greatest cheerleaders, along with your buddy Margolis. That anybody would seriously listen to your opinions on who should or should not be considered as the right person for any position more important than assistant dog catcher is a joke. Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor, keep your half-(expletive deleted) opinions to yourself.

  Enjoy your day!

• 3. Some Assembly Required  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am

  “Senator McCain needs to make deep, sustained arguments on behalf of liberty, limited government, constitutionalism, the family, and American strength and military power (from prosecuting the Iraq war to a successful conclusion to effective terrorist surveillance policies) in confronting militant Islam.”

  I believe this will lose McCain the election outright. A republican arguing about the constitution after Bush is a political death sentence. Also, the majority of the American public want out of Iraq, the democratic support for Obama over Hillary recently is party because of this. So in my opinion, great sound advice on how to lose in a complete and utter landslide.

• 4. Ricorun  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am

  ““Senator McCain needs to make deep, sustained arguments on behalf of liberty, limited government, constitutionalism, the family, and American strength and military power (from prosecuting the Iraq war to a successful conclusion to effective terrorist surveillance policies) in confronting militant Islam.”

  I notice there’s nothing about the economy in that list. Nothing about energy either. Or health care. Those are the issues that are most on people’s minds currently. To ignore them would be suicide. Whatever, I look forward to McCain fleshing out his policies. And if anyone can provide me with links to details about those policies I’d be much obliged.

• 5. Barack Obama » How &hellip  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am

  [...] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on How to Beat ObamaHere’s a quick excerptIf Obama should win the Democratic nomination, John McCain should go straight at his record — with precision, without rancor, and relentlessly. John McCain will not win a personality contest against Barack Obama; no political figure in … [...]

• 6. hermie  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am

  Go after Obama’s partisan attempts to filibuster judicial appoinments including Alito; trying to associate him with a ‘racism’ accusation; and contrast it with Obama’s rhetoric about ‘bipartisanship’.

  Go after Obama’s willful blindness to corruption in Illinois, and contrast it with his rhetoric about ‘change’.

  Go after Obama’s earmarks and contrast it with his rhetoric about fiscal responsibility.

• 7. Some Assembly Required  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am

  Yup, and when Obama doesn’t give McCain the time of day when it comes to dirty politics but calls him on issues such as health care and the economy, what then?

• 8. Bob Taft  |  February 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am

  I think we all know that McCain has no chance against the dem’s in the general election. His stance on war is enough in itself to soundly defeat him, as public sentiment soars to over 3/4 against the occupations. Add to that his amnesty for illegals stance and record, his health care bill for Mexico, and his irresponsibility in supporting so called “free trade” agreements that outsource our jobs, and you quickly find that he is absolutely unelectable.
  Huckabee continues to run, and although he has more charm than McCain, he has a record of increasing taxes for big government, and supports the occupations. He does seem more and more appealing as he continues to take points from the third candidate still in contention and add them to his platform. Unless he gets a clue about our foreign policy, though, he is as unelectable as McCain. I would suggest he read Michael Scheuer’s(founder of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit) books.
  Which brings us to the one Republican candidate left in the field who could actually crush the dem’s in November. The one who promises us the real “change” that we all know we so desperately need - a return to lawful, Constitutional government. The one the troops overwhelmingly support because he understands the damage our current foreign policy is wreaking on the world. The doctor who has a prescription for what ails this nation. That prescription is a direct Constitutional injection administered vigorously and repeatedly followed by years under close observation by the people.
  There is “Hope for America”, and there is hope for our party. We CAN defeat the democrats and win the White House this year. All we have to do is be wise enough to nominate Dr. Ron Paul in September.

• 9. SteaM  |  February 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am

  It’s not a sharp contrast between conservatives and liberals that draws you to this “fight”.

  It’s a battle between the reality and your reality. A fight against change and real progress. A fight against a united country who, in that state, can prevail rather than fall apart in its division.

  Good luck with your fight, BFV’ers. Last night I watched Michelle Obama and I literally was on the edge of my seat with a very proud smile and a warm feeling. She was very inspirational and a great speaker. It made me proud to be an american. I couldn’t even sleep I was so excited.

• 10. Kahn  |  February 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am

  Obama the other day said that though gun violence needed to be reduced (true), gun ownership was an individual right.

  This is a difference between him and some liberals. I wonder if like Condi Rice, he thinks that guns owned by blacks helped back up the peaceful revolution that MLK preached?

• 11. Iraq » How to Beat &hellip  |  February 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  [...] Laurelâ��s TV Picks | http://www.tvpicks.net wrote an interesting post today on How to Beat ObamaHere’s a quick excerpt…government, constitutionalism, the family, and American strength and military power (from prosecuting the Iraq war to a successful conclusion… [...]

• 12. BARRASSO  |  February 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  The giant liberal strawman that Rush et all have built over the last few decades isn’t scaring people anymore. The gun confiscating, tax raising, socialist meme isn’t working anymore on anyone but the 30 percenters.

  McCain won’t win because all he has is repeating that Obama is a ‘Liberal’, which is a word that the right has spent twenty years twisting into an insult, but the actions of Bush and his sycophants have now made conservative an even more odious term. Given the choice most people would now say they lean reasonable liberal over crazy conservative. Unfortunately for the conservative cult the people of the US noticed the last six years and didn’t like what they saw.

• 13. SEW  |  February 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  SteamM, Glad to see you lust for Michelle.. Chris Matthews has a chill in his leg when he listens to Hussein, much like the limo driver got from the obamma hummer.

  Good luck with that, and best of luck with getting the needed 95% of votes from Hillary supporters. Remember George McGovern? 08 will be much more severe than 1972 was for George. Peace.

• 14. sleepygene  |  February 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  Kahn-

  I am not sure what youa re saying. Is it your contention the Ms. Rice believes that the threat of violence by MLK’s supporters was a primary reason for his succes at bringing about social change? Where did she state this?

• 15. InDaVa  |  February 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  What exactly are McCain’s policies? I can’t find much on what he is going to do……..

• 16. plainjane  |  February 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  What is new? The Repugs, void of ideas are going to run a campaign on war mongering and painting Democrats as un-American. You have my blessing, since this Limbaugh/Hannity method of campaigning worked so well for the GOP in 06.

  You may want to fix McCain first. But I believe McCain he is already gone. He pandered to the religious right after stating religious right leader Jerry Falwell was an ”evil” force whose message of ”intolerance” hurt America. And just recently he looked the American people in the eye during a debate and said waterborading is torture and Romney is wrong to support such torture. Fast forward two weeks we get the politically expedient McCain as he voted against a law that would make it clear to President Bush waterboarding is torture. If he can lie to the American people so boldly to their face what other core principles is he compromising in back room deals? But the picture of McCain hugging President Bush, cheek to cheek as if joined at the hip, in that now famous picture will take the most fixing. 1/20/09

• 17. Timmy J. Rooter  |  February 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

  liberalT wrote, “ cheek to cheek as if joined at the hip,”

  People that mix metaphors aren’t batting with a full deck.

• 18. Diana Powe  |  February 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Unfortunately, in the battle of ideas, Senator McCain is the wrong soldier for you, Mark. Unlike the facile explanations that could be offered for Mitt Romney’s changing of his political beliefs, Senator McCain has much greater problems. Bearing the permanent marks on his body of the torture that was inflicted on him for five-plus years, he has repeatedly and publicly embodied resistance to the idea that the United States should embrace torture, including waterboarding, in addressing terrorism. This resistance has come as recently as four months ago:
  

  “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” Mr. McCain, who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said in a telephone interview.

  Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”
  __________
  Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/politics/26giuliani.html

  There is no nuance in the statement, “It is torture.” It does not require knowing what the meaning of “is” is. Senator John McCain, who has more credibility than any member of Congress on the subject, declared that what the Bush Administration has publicly acknowledged doing, is torture.

• 19. Diana Powe  |  February 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 20. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  February 19th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  What must it have been for you, Diana? Being surrounded by people discussing subjects far beyond your comprehension and begging for attention? Did your family smile and nod politely when you spoke, then dismiss you to go play with dolls and sit in your cardboard box pretending to be much smarter than you really are?

  Sadly, a result of this insecurity is your constant attempts to turn the discussion to areas you feel you have some knowledge, however convoluted that belief may be.

  In re the 2-13-08 vote; the vote was on a democrat amendment that would apply the Department of Defense Field Manual to the CIA. Because the techniques used by the CIA are already vetted by Justice, the CIA already complies with the definition of torture. This was a meaningless attempt by democrats to fool the weak minded; I see it worked.

  Now, try to stick to the subject; please. Or as I’ve read on these pages before; if you can’t keep up, take notes.

• 21. Darva Conger  |  February 19th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  “What exactly are McCain?s policies? I can?t find much on what he is going to do??..”

  We’re staying in Iraq for 100 years.

• 22. Timmy J. Rooter  |  February 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

  Cripes Darva, are you stupid or you just don’t care?

  http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/

• 23. Diana Powe  |  February 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

  Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,

  Thank you very much for the snotty insults. I won’t return your animus because Mark says that only liberals are hateful.

  Mark wrote a post about how Senator McCain, who Mark appears to view as the presumptive GOP nominee, should approach his campaign with the possible Democratic nominee, Senator Obama, to wit, “McCain would not only give himself his best shot of beating Obama, but also do a service to the nation by laying out clearly just what the issues of 2008 are.” Well, Senator McCain (Ed. Note, off topic part of comment deleted - seriously, Diana, keep it on topic).

• 24. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  February 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  Diana,
  What is with you? This isn’t a thread about McCain on water boarding; he’s made his opposition to that his legacy. You want to debate that go find a place where it’s being discussed.

  I don’t hate you, I feel sorry that you can’t seem to join the conversation in any meaningful way so you’re reduced to changing the subject. Tell ya’ what; send your brother to the blog, I’m sure he has the wherewithal to continue the conversation on Obama.

• 25. sleepygene  |  February 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

  Herki-

  I think Diana is effectively making the counter-argument that will be most certainly be made by Obama if he is the nominee. That argument being, McCain is now a flip flopper on torture. This helps McCain with the base but not with the coveted independents that both Obama and McCain seek. You really don’t see how this related to the post.

• 26. Dennis  |  February 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  America is a liberal nation. In our more reflective moments when we appeal to our historical identity, we praise the ideal of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is what the Bush administration clumsily attempted to clone in Iraq, without understanding the historical incompatibility of the raw material of Iraq with liberalism.

  It’s not surprising that attempts to demonize liberalism have finally and decisively failed; what is more surprising is that people like Noonan and Margolis still think there is some political capital to be gained in beating that dead horse. The real eye-opener is that the model of conservatism begun with Reagan and come to full flower in the Bush era proved so toxic to both the well-being of people at the individual level and America at the national level. Toxic to the entire world, for that matter.

  Diana Powe, hats off to you for your patience and courtesy in trying to bring the benighted souls on this blog into the light. This site is a fascinating anachronism, still faithfully flogging its failed ideology. It is a tragedy in a teacup to watch the lads flail about, and so generous of you to help. Like rescuing trapped flies from a window sash, or plucking fish from a toxic stream. Surely there is a place in heaven for you.

• 27. SAGE advise to McCain! at&hellip  |  February 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  [...] How to Beat Obama [...]

• 28. SEW  |  February 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

  “Bush era proved so toxic to both the well-being of people at the individual level and America at the national level. Toxic to the entire world, for that matter”

  W is up for reelection? BDS. The only thing toxic here are the deranged liberals. But Dennis, you and dian are a lovely couple.

  “fascinating anachronism, still faithfully flogging its failed ideology. It is a tragedy in a teacup ”

  Quote from dian or Dennis. Pure horseshit.
  Regards.

• 29. Ricorun  |  February 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

  22. Timmy J. Rooter,

  I went up to McCain’s site, and found myself asking the same question over and over again: How?

  For example, on the subject of “The Environment”, he says, “Americans solve problems. We don’t run from them.” He believes that ignoring the problem reflects a “liberal live for today” attitude unworthy of our great country, and poses a serious and unacceptable threat to our environment, our economy, and U.S. national security. He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.”

  How does he propose to harness the market forces? He mentions only nuclear energy specifically, and suggests that it will reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy. Well, first of all, nuclear energy isn’t going to fuel our cars and trucks. Second, and perhaps more importantly, all but 16% of the enriched uranium we use now is supplied by foreign sources. Building more reactors will exacerbate the problem. Moreover, uranium prices have more than quintupled in the last 5 years. Georgia is worried that they’ll have to shut down their nuclear reactor this summer because there might not be enough water in the rivers to cycle through the cooling towers. I’m not ruling nuclear power out, but it doesn’t sound to me like it’s likely to be a very cost-effective, reliable, or a complete solution.

  On health care McCain says, Controlling health care costs will take fundamental change - nothing short of a complete reform of the culture of our health system and the way we pay for it will suffice. Reforms to federal policy and programs should focus on enhancing quality while controlling costs [...snip...]While we reform the system and maintain quality, we can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens - whether temporarily or chronically uninsured, whether living in rural areas with limited services, or whether residing in inner cities where access to physicians is often limited.

  Health care is actually one that he offers quite a few details. But though he certainly uses different words, many of the details he proposes sound a lot like Obama’s.

  On the economy he proposes opening new markets. He doesn’t say where, or what kinds. He does indicate it would likely be painful, and that we need to invest in retraining. What kind of retraining? For what jobs? Who will do it and who will pay?

  He talks about cutting corporate taxes by 10%. That’s something I think is a good idea. But it will certainly cause a significant shortfall in revenues over the short term. He talks about eliminating earmarks (something else I think is a good idea — or at least significantly curtailing them). But even if the money spent on earmarks is completely eliminated rather than spent in a less-directed way (unlikely in some cases), it’s still a drop in the discretionary spending ocean. And it sure as heck isn’t going to make up the revenue shortfall.

  In the Iraq section he talks about sending MORE troops. Where is he going to find them? He wants to accelerate training of Iraqi troops and reconstruction work. Good ideas to be sure. But one wonders why they haven’t been done already. And considering they haven’t, how does he propose to improve them? And how are we going to pay for all this stuff?

• 30. Retired Spook  |  February 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  America is a liberal nation. In our more reflective moments when we appeal to our historical identity, we praise the ideal of liberal democracy.

  Would that that were true, Dennis. Sadly you’ve made the common mistake of confusing modern Leftist Socialism with Classical liberalism.

  Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] The “normative core” of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state’s provision of a few basic public goods.[6] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from evolutions in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the “new liberalism” associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called “liberalism” today in the United States, as “classical liberalism” is actually closer to being a tendency of “conservatism” in the U.S. (emphasis added)

• 31. Kahn  |  February 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  sleepygene - Do you remember the three little girls killed in a Mississippi church bombing? That was Condi’s church and those were her friends. She tells a story about how the Klan was on it’s way out to burn down her neighborhood. Remember, the Klan was the Police and they could expect no help. Her father and other men in the neighborhood took their guns out and defended their homes. This was 1960’s Mississippi.

  I was just speculating why Obama has the individual right position. It’s outside the liberal norm. Not good or bad, just wondering.

  There are several million of us who see the second amendment as a major issue. Democrats have won here in Virginia when they stand up for this right. It could well make the difference for Obama. Though McCain is also a second amendment defender.

  Note - the Clintons are NOT. Never have been, and we don’t believe they ever will be.

• 32. Dennis  |  February 19th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  SEW, please try to grasp the complexity of longer sentences. You read, “Bush era proved so toxic” - what I said was “…the model of conservatism begun with Reagan and come to full flower in the Bush era proved so toxic…”

  Yes Spook, I know about classical liberalism, and having been raised in the Eisenhower era I know a little about classical conservatism as well. Funny how both those words have changed meaning, huh?

  But I stand by my statement. It was America’s liberalism, even in the more modern sense, that dictated great endeavors like the Marshall Plan, Social Security and the War on Poverty.

  Whereas it’s the modern incarnation of conservatism that flogs the War on Terror and its very own attendant terrors, such as preventive war, extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus, military tribunals of suspects who have been tortured, warrantless spying on Americans within the US, etc. I rather prefer the liberalism, and feel much prouder of that.

  I have always contended that if we hadn’t spurned the Founders’ ideals there would be no terror campaign directed against us. And terror, shock and awe - take your pick. To the innocent victims of either there’s not a dime’s worth of difference.

• 33. sleepygene  |  February 19th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

  Kahn-

  I thought it was Alabama, but your point is well taken. I agree that threat of violence was a factor to gaining the change needed. I think Obama’s opinion about the 2nd amendment comes from his backrground as a Con. Law professor. I think his position is that there is an individual right to bare arms subject to reasonable regulation by the government. The key question is what is “reasonable regulation”?

• 34. Darva Conger  |  February 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

  Rooter

  Cripes Rooter, are you stupid or you just don?t care?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

• 35. Mark Noonan  |  February 20th, 2008 at 1:09 am

  Phil,

  My opinions are something which you seek out, not which I bring to you. I think I’ll ask you not to comment here any more, as you are nothing but a string of insults…which I don’t particularly care about, but which add nothing to the debate. Once you’ve thought about your worldview for a while and are willing to apologise, you may resume commenting.

• 36. Xango Annie  |  February 20th, 2008 at 2:03 am

  I don’t think Phil will come back..he can’t help himself..too much self-loathing there..

• 37. brett michaels  |  February 20th, 2008 at 2:10 am

  Spook,

  I take it you have never read Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson?

  If you had, then you would not have cited wikipedia and in particular added the emphasis.

  I respect your opinion, but you would be wise to never use wikipedia as a source to buttress an argument ever again

  The book is available at Amazon.com If you read it you will see why your quote is so damn funny.

• 38. Christian Wright  |  February 20th, 2008 at 7:20 am

  How to beat McCain

  “A vote for McCain is a vote for a Century in Iraq.”

  “Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran.”

  “Send your children and grandchildren to the Middle-East: Vote McCain”

• 39. FmrMarine  |  February 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

  CW
  Sure we will keep our children and grand children home!
  THAT way WE can be BOMBED while at -
  school, work, mall, soda shop, pizza shop, weddings, airplanes, trains, tunnels, buses, our throats cut on American idol, women murdered by family members, clitoral mutilation, HELL hands, and heads cut off during half time at football games while shouting allah akbar-something.
  SOUNDS LIKE a PLAN TO ME!

  I really hate bush for not implementing this master plan of CW’s.

• 40. Christian Wright  |  February 20th, 2008 at 11:48 pm

  For a former marine, you really are quite the coward for actually fearing that scenario.

  18,000 people die every year in the US due to lack of affordable health care. 50,000 people die every year in traffic accidents. The list goes on.

  The last thing on my list of worries is some terrorist.

• 41. Consolidation Loans&hellip  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

  Consolidation Loans

  Debt management and debt programs that helps with credit card consolidation.