McCain Continues to Be Fuzzy on the Details

Hilzoy discusses the latest example of McCain’s apparent cluelessness about policy details, even when it comes to his signature issue (the surge): More straight talk…

If you put it together with some of the other gaffes he’s delivered in the past few months, it starts to look like a consistent pattern. Check it out:

So, can someone explain to me why McCain has any support at all?

20 Responses to “McCain Continues to Be Fuzzy on the Details”

  1. ymatt Says:

    Yeah, I had vaguely positive feelings about the guy, but looking back I think that was only because his name sometimes popped up opposing some things that needed opposing. But um, occasional contrarian tendencies is not really cutting it now.

  2. shcb Says:

    That’s because he was always the media darling when he was a “maverick” a fly in the ointment of the Republican party, now that he is against a Democrat whether that be Hill or ‘Bama the media hates him, and you guys buy whatever the media is selling especially if Soros is the salesman. Conservatives have been laughing for months that the media would turn on the golden boy Republican like a jilted sugar daddy whore as soon as the nomination was in the bag. McCain is who he is, he is a soft Republican with a distinguished war history, in valor, not deed. His claim to fame from a deed standpoint is he was one plane away from death on the Forestall, and he was shot down. Staying with his mates as a POW when release was offered because his dad was a powerful man makes him a hero in valor. He is the Republican version of Joe Lieberman, Joe was a conservative Democrat until AlGore asked him to be his running mate, he turned into a flaming liberal until the election was over, he then couldn’t go back to a Democrat with a straight face so now he is an ”independent”. In reality he is and always has been a conservative Democrat. When Ben Nighthorse Campbell turned from a Democrat to a Republican he said something to the effect that all he was doing was going from a pain in the ass of the Democrats to a pain in the ass of the Republicans.

  3. knarlyknight Says:

    Uh huh, yea right. “Liberal” media (sic) got poor Rethuglicans all wrong. LMAO.

    Sorry shcb, but just like Bush lost all his credibility McCain has simply done so at rate that is light years faster. As noted in the article, the huge negative reaction to the old fart is that his own doublespeak has resulted in a complete loss of credibility, to wit:

    Still, it’s nice to know in advance that we can expect John McCain not to care about the difference between past, present, and future. It will be very useful, if he becomes President, to know that he regards a statement like “I have taken action” as equivalent to “I will, eventually, get around to doing something, but I haven’t yet”, and that he takes “I have already made all the documents available” and “several decades from now, I will get around to releasing them” to be interchangeable.

    Yeah, elect that guy. LOL

  4. NorthernLite Says:

    If you really wanna learn all about John McCain:

    http://www.mccainsucks.com/

  5. knarlyknight Says:

    And if you want to see what the spector of more McSame same same for 100 years is fertilizing, amoung the growing numbers of people who are Fed up with neo-con thugs and aren’t going to take it any longer… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

    I wonder if Paul will be allowed to speak at the convention, he has yet to concede and McCain seems to be imploding. Republicans – these is still an alternative. LOL.

  6. shcb Says:

    I have no idea who this guy is but I found it kind of humorous.

    When I said “I could no more disassociate myself from the Rev. Wright than I could disassociate myself from the black church”, I lied. I threw Rev. Wright under the bus the second it became politically expedient to do so.

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977358635&nav=Namespace

  7. knarlyknight Says:

    That was lame, the quote above was the least lame of the whole thing.

    But if you found that funny, then you might like this too:

    A taster from Kevin, on “Why Blacks Keep Quiet About Obama”:

    “Black people always have to navigate race fear; the long Democratic primary season has just underlined that. Joking, comedian Jon Stewart asked Obama, if elected, “Will you pull a bait and switch and enslave the white race?” Kinda funny. Except that’s precisely the sentiment that underlies white race fear. I’ve heard the same thing said in seriousness by more than one white person. “If Obama gets the White House what will they want next?” Or, “if Obama wins, blacks will think they’re running things.”

    . . .Give a listen to the corporate media, and it’s pretty clear what tune black voices are supposed to be singing. Obama is constantly called on to swear allegiance to America – to prove he isn’t swearing allegiance to blacks. The other way to say that is he’s supposed to swear allegiance to white, not black, America. Meanwhile, the back end of that deal is that black Americans are required to substitute Obama for real structural racial progress. As in, “You got your nominee. See, we’re not so racist or bad after all. Now shut up!”

    the excerpt is rom the end of this intro: http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05312008.html

  8. shcb Says:

    Well, if that one was too silly for you, here a couple that are a bit more heady

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=295831088444972

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRhNDQ4MGFlYjk0YzUwNDk0MzYyNTE1ZDkwYmNmNDc=&w=Mg==

  9. knarlyknight Says:

    Advice for the wanna be Prezlenitwit McSame “bomb bomb bomb Iran” warmonger, and all his wwnj followers (that means you shcb): You were wrong on Iraq, attacking Iran is somehwere between ten and a thousand times more stupid. And not just for the following reason:

    What will happen if the U.S. even drops one bomb on Iran?

    All oil exports from Iran will cease, removing close to twenty million barrels of oil from world markets. Iran would stop traffic in the Strait of Hormuz by attacking oil tankers. It may even attack key oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Gulf countries with its arsenal of Chinese Silkworm missiles.

    If people are lamenting over gas prices approaching five dollars, I guarantee you that they will top off $10.00 at the pump and more than $ 200 a barrel within hours of an attack. The US can’t afford to attack Iran and Ahmadinejad knows this. That’s why he has a grin on his face.

    from http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080613/cm_huffpost/106995

  10. knarlyknight Says:

    Advice for the wanna be Prezlenitwit McSame “bomb bomb bomb Iran” warmonger, and all his wwnj followers (that means you shcb): You were wrong on Iraq, attacking Iran is somehwere between ten and a thousand times more stupid. And not just for the following reason:

    What will happen if the U.S. even drops one bomb on Iran?

    All oil exports from Iran will cease, removing close to twenty million barrels of oil from world markets. Iran would stop traffic in the Strait of Hormuz by attacking oil tankers. It may even attack key oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Gulf countries with its arsenal of Chinese Silkworm missiles.

    If people are lamenting over gas prices approaching five dollars, I guarantee you that they will top off $10.00 at the pump and more than $ 200 a barrel within hours of an attack. The US can’t afford to attack Iran and Ahmadinejad knows this. That’s why he has a grin on his face.

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    More McSame fuzzy details: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html

  12. mike25 Says:

    knarlyknight, a light year is a measurement of distance, not time. Making such an error does not add creditability to your views very well. Neither McCain nor Obama are my ideal candidate, but at least one will answer questions directly, even if the response is not what you want to hear. The other meanwhile only wants change, but what that change is or how it will be achieved is a mystery that is yet to be revealed, worse than doublespeak it is entirely undefined. No one enjoys conflict, but how would you suggest we deal with nations like Iran? They select to ignore the UN and all of the warnings that have been put out by the international community, they publicly speak about the destruction of Israel being a main goal and have national holidays which celebrate the destruction of all Zionism, sounds like a peachy place to me. I am sure they will handle the responsibility of nuclear technology with the utmost respect for peace, prosperity and human rights.

    Lets just allow them to have Poland so long as they promise to call it quits. Ring any bells? We will just sit back and enjoy our cheap oil. Who cares what these primitive tyrannical dictators would like to do, we will just wait until the human race is threatened by annihilation before we decide to drop all the politics and just do what is right.

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    Hi Mike,
    Thanks for the correction, yes I realize a light year is a measurement of distance not time. My use of it was as a common figure of speech, without thinking of its real meaning. To be more precise I’ll avoid that term in future except in reference to distance. Thanks again.

    As to McCain answering more directly and Obama speaking in vague terms, I think you may have a good point there.

    If Obama is elected I am sure the façade will slip away and people will begin to realize he is not as divine as he appeared in his pre-election costume. Perhaps he is as reptilian as McCain, time will tell.

    You asked, how would I suggest we deal with nations like Iran. First, don’t let ignorant (i.e. lacking a sound knowledge of middle eastern historical and cultural concerns), warmongering (i.e. strong ties to military/industrial lobbyists), nut jobs (i.e. see various posts about McCain above) be at the forefront of policy comments about Iran. Defer to experts in middle eastern studies, preferably those with less obvious agendas.

    Second, try to understand Iran’s position: they have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (unlike Israel who refused to do so and now holds the middle east’s only arsenal of nuclear bombs), they have done nothing illegal, their nuclear facilities are under IAEA observation, including surveillance cameras of key areas, and the IAEA is satisfied that they are operating in a legitimate manner. So Iranians see the UN resolutions as a highly discriminatory and unfair infringement by an imperialistic world body on their right as a sovereign nation to develop nuclear power.

    Do I think Iran should develop nuclear power? No. Solar, wind and tidal makes more sense. Do I think they have a right to do so and legitimate reasons to do so? Yes. Do I think Iran’s real motive is to develop a nuclear bomb? Maybe, there is a good chance of that. Do I think Iran would use a nuclear weapon with less consideration for all the bad implications than the US? No, in fact the USA is threatening to use nuclear weapons now in first strike scenarios and are threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s IAEA facilities.

    Third, I would educate people about the difference between Jews, Israel, and Zionism. In a nutshell, the American equivalent of those terms would be Christians, America, and neo-conservatism. Objecting to neo-conservatism designs for an Imperialistic America is not anti-American, it is strongly pro-American and pro-Republican based on traditional and documented ideals. Zionists are criticized for their agenda to make Israel a dominant and controlling power over palestinians and other arabs, much like the neo-cons are criticized (outside America at least) for similar goals in their manifesto produced by the Project for a New American Century. Opposing zionism can be seen as supporting a more peaceful and ultimately more secure Israel.

    I think you are quite right in claiming that Iranian leaders wish to overcome Zionism. However I also think that they do recognize, despite poor translations or misquotes or high rhetoric on the part of Ahmedinejan, the right of Israel as a nation to continue, and recognize that by and large Jews are peaceful, decent people. The problem is the arrogant militaristic element, much like the neo-cons in your country.

    You say that Iran sounds like a “peachy place”. It is not America and their laws and customs and human rights record is often horrific to our sensibilities (although Saudi Arabia is worse!). Regardless, there are millions of people who live there and love Iran for all sorts of other reasons. You might try to get to know it in all its natural splendor, rich historical treasure, social fabric, and the peoples’ strong commitment to decency as instructed by the word of God before you side with people in your country who want to turn the region into a radioactive sheet of glass for the next 500 millions years. Iran is more than the images you see of it on your t.v. or in action movies.

    Your last paragraph is merely the predictable tyrannical tirade that results when people selectively feed upon nightmares and half-truths. I won’t comment on it except to say that there are whole spectrums of intelligent and strategic options other than the naïve policy of appeasement and the counter productive policy of (McCain’s) raw aggression.

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    Hi Mike,
    Thanks for the correction, yes I realize a light year is a measurement of distance not time. My use of it was as a common figure of speech, without thinking of its real meaning. To be more precise I’ll avoid that term in future except in reference to distance. Thanks again.

    As to McCain answering more directly and Obama speaking in vague terms, I think you may have a good point there.

    If Obama is elected I am sure the façade will slip away and people will begin to realize he is not as divine as he appeared in his pre-election costume. Perhaps he is as reptilian as McCain, time will tell.

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    Hi Mike,
    Thanks for the correction, yes “light year” is a measurement of distance not time. My use of it was as a common figure of speech, without thinking of its real meaning. For precision I’ll avoid that term except in reference to distance. Thanks again.

    As to McCain answering more directly and Obama speaking in vague terms, I think you may have a good point there.

    If Obama is elected I am sure the façade will slip away and people will begin to realize he is not as divine as he appeared in his pre-election costume. Perhaps he is as reptilian as McCain, time will tell.

    You asked, how would I suggest we deal with nations like Iran. First, don’t let ignorant (i.e. lacking a sound knowledge of middle eastern historical and cultural concerns), warmongering (i.e. strong ties to military/industrial lobbyists), nut jobs (i.e. see various posts about McCain above) be at the forefront of policy comments about Iran. Defer to experts in middle eastern studies, preferably those with less obvious agendas.

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    Second, try to understand Iran’s position: they have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (unlike Israel who refused to do so and now holds the middle east’s only arsenal of nuclear bombs), they have done nothing illegal, their nuclear facilities are under IAEA observation, including surveillance cameras of key areas, and the IAEA is satisfied that they are operating in a legitimate manner. So Iranians see the UN resolutions as a highly discriminatory and unfair infringement by an imperialistic world body on their right as a sovereign nation to develop nuclear power.

    Do I think Iran should develop nuclear power? No. Solar, wind and tidal makes more sense. Do I think they have a right to do so and legitimate reasons to do so? Yes. Do I think Iran’s real motive is to develop a nuclear bomb? Maybe, there is a good chance of that. Do I think Iran would use a nuclear weapon with less consideration for all the bad implications than the US? No, in fact the USA is threatening to use nuclear weapons now in first strike scenarios and are threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s IAEA facilities.

    Third, I would educate people about the difference between Jews, Israel, and Zionism. In a nutshell, the American equivalent of those terms would be Christians, America, and neo-conservatism. Objecting to neo-conservatism designs for an Imperialistic America is not anti-American, it is strongly pro-American and pro-Republican based on traditional and documented ideals. Zionists are criticized for their agenda to make Israel a dominant and controlling power over palestinians and other arabs, much like the neo-cons are criticized (outside America at least) for similar goals in their manifesto produced by the Project for a New American Century. Opposing zionism can be seen as supporting a more peaceful and ultimately more secure Israel.

    I think you are quite right in claiming that Iranian leaders wish to overcome Zionism. However I also think that they do recognize, despite poor translations or misquotes or high rhetoric on the part of Ahmedinejan, the right of Israel as a nation to continue, and recognize that by and large Jews are peaceful, decent people. The problem is the arrogant militaristic element, much like the neo-cons in your country.

    You say that Iran sounds like a “peachy place”. It is not America and their laws and customs and human rights record is often horrific to our sensibilities (although Saudi Arabia is worse!). Regardless, there are millions of people who live there and love Iran for all sorts of other reasons. You might try to get to know it in all its natural splendor, rich historical treasure, social fabric, and the peoples’ strong commitment to decency as instructed by the word of God before you side with people in your country who want to turn the region into a radioactive sheet of glass for the next 500 millions years. Iran is more than the images you see of it on your t.v. or in action movies.

    Your last paragraph is merely the predictable tyrannical tirade that results when people selectively feed upon nightmares and half-truths. I won’t comment on it except to say that there are whole spectrums of intelligent and strategic options other than the naïve policy of appeasement and the counter productive policy of (McCain’s) raw aggression.

  17. enkidu Says:

    mike
    - Chamberlain gave away Czeckoslovakia, not Poland
    - Oil is not cheap – it is about $135 a barrel these days
    - Zionism… why is it America’s purpose in life to clean up after the Israelis? Why doesn’t Israel go back to the ’67 borders (or some approximation) in a land for peace deal?
    - If you like how bush ruined the country then your candidate is clear…
    McSame: four more wars!

    If “doing what is right” means getting the world off oil, then I most wholeheartedly agree.

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    My comments do not seem to get through. Not trying to ignore you Mike! I’ll chop it up and see if that works:

    Hi Mike,
    Thanks for the correction, yes “light year” is a measurement of distance not time. My use of it was as a common figure of speech, without thinking of its real meaning. For precision I’ll avoid that term except in reference to distance. Thanks again.

  19. enkidu Says:

    posts are appearing in strange order
    oos

  20. knarlyknight Says:

    http://www.americablog.com/2008/07/america-prepares-to-celebrate-its.html

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.