I am sorely disappointed.
Sigh.
The appropriate -- but discouraging in its very appropriateness -- response?
Barack Obama and William Ayers = John McCain and Charles H. Keating, Jr.
The significant difference? McCain, at the time a United States Senator, was determined by the Ethics Committee of exercising "poor judgment" -- poor judgment that contributed to the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Barack Obama points out that Bill Ayers is “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
Is it noteworthy to point out that McCain's indiscretion occured when he was at the comparative ripe old age of 51 (depending on what date one chooses: I chose 1987 because it marks McCain's maverick-y response to being called a "wimp" -- that is, it marks his participation in the infamous April 1987 meetings with FHLBB members.)
Oh, did I forget to point out that once McCain discovered Keating was under criminal investigation, he ended his involvement? Selon Wikipedia:
On April 2, 1987, a meeting with chairman Gray of the FHLBB was held in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and McCain also in attendance.[8] The senators requested that no staff be present.[13] DeConcini started the meeting with a mention of "our friend at Lincoln."[8] Gray told the assembled senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those regulators and the senators.[8]
On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[5] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[12][8] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[8] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[8] DeConcini began the meeting by saying, "We wanted to meet with you because we have determined that potential actions of yours could injure a constituent."[14] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." Glenn said, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," while DeConcini said, "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act? ... It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."[8] The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating.[8]
I am very attracted to people, politicians, especially, who are able to adjust their attitudes and actions when new information comes to light. Nothing proved more disheartening to me than W's constant noise about not changing horses in midstream, not abandoning a stance, even a clearly inappropriate and losing stance.
More than just a sign of intransigeance, his rigidity heralded his cruel stupidity.
Mais je divague... So I admire, to an extent, McCain's retrieval of his good sense from the edge of criminal intent and activity -- back then. What an honest guy. What a maverick. WhooHoo.
Likewise, I am very put off by people, politicians, especially, who figure, and appeal to, some sort of lowest common denominator.
In June, the Washington Wire blog at WSJ.com published this interesting take on current applications of Swift Boat style political attacks:
June 30, 2008, 6:55 pm
McCain Supporter Defends Swift Boat Attacks
Laura Meckler reports on the presidential race from Harrisburg, Pa.
A group of John McCain’s supporters came together today to defend McCain against charges that he was overstating the importance of his military service. Many remember how Democrat John Kerry was wounded by attacks in 2004 on his military record, and the McCain campaign does not want to let any charge go unanswered. More important, the spat gives the McCain campaign a reason to talk about his military service, a topic that serves him well.
The conference call with reporters took an odd turn when the supporters were asked if the anti-McCain comments, including one issued Sunday by retired Gen. Wesley Clark, were analogous to charges issued by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Kerry in 2004. The group was condemned in many quarters, and today its very name — swift boat — is used as a synonym for a slimy political attack. Even McCain condemned the Swift Boat group in 2004.
But one McCain supporter, retired Col. Bud Day, who was held prisoner with McCain in Vietnam, said the attacks on McCain were nothing like the swift boat attacks. He helped produce those attacks against Kerry, which were true, he said. The attacks against McCain are not, he added.
Put all of this in the context of Sarah Palin's most recent idiocy -- and we are back to old-school backroom nonsense, made almost intolerable by this bright and shiny, now inane, now astute, new mouthpiece. She is paving the way for another detour from today's problems in order to reintroduce Jeremiah Wright, and -- undoubtedly -- Tony Rezko. God forbid she should address the economy in lieu of "associations" that have been explained and vetted ad nauseum.
Douglass K. Daniel goes beyond pointing out the blatant dishonesty of Palin's lowest-common-denominator approach and notes a frightening racial "subtext" in her golly-gosh-gee remarks:
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
The fact is that when racism creeps into the discussion, it serves a purpose for McCain. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.
John McCain occasionally says he looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol.
When the 2008 campaign is over will McCain say he regrets appeals such as Palin's?
I am sorely, sorely disappointed. This was supposed to be the election of all elections, wherein dialogue was to be on point, on policy, and all about respecting the intelligence of the American electorate. Instead we are left with inflammatory analogies that kill the intellectual rigor most had been hungrily anticipating for the presidential elections of 2008.
Barack Obama and William Ayers = John McCain and Charles H. Keating, Jr.
Sigh.
The appropriate -- but discouraging in its very appropriateness -- response?
Barack Obama and William Ayers = John McCain and Charles H. Keating, Jr.
The significant difference? McCain, at the time a United States Senator, was determined by the Ethics Committee of exercising "poor judgment" -- poor judgment that contributed to the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Barack Obama points out that Bill Ayers is “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
Is it noteworthy to point out that McCain's indiscretion occured when he was at the comparative ripe old age of 51 (depending on what date one chooses: I chose 1987 because it marks McCain's maverick-y response to being called a "wimp" -- that is, it marks his participation in the infamous April 1987 meetings with FHLBB members.)
Oh, did I forget to point out that once McCain discovered Keating was under criminal investigation, he ended his involvement? Selon Wikipedia:
On April 2, 1987, a meeting with chairman Gray of the FHLBB was held in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and McCain also in attendance.[8] The senators requested that no staff be present.[13] DeConcini started the meeting with a mention of "our friend at Lincoln."[8] Gray told the assembled senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those regulators and the senators.[8]
On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[5] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[12][8] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[8] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[8] DeConcini began the meeting by saying, "We wanted to meet with you because we have determined that potential actions of yours could injure a constituent."[14] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." Glenn said, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," while DeConcini said, "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act? ... It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."[8] The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating.[8]
I am very attracted to people, politicians, especially, who are able to adjust their attitudes and actions when new information comes to light. Nothing proved more disheartening to me than W's constant noise about not changing horses in midstream, not abandoning a stance, even a clearly inappropriate and losing stance.
More than just a sign of intransigeance, his rigidity heralded his cruel stupidity.
Mais je divague... So I admire, to an extent, McCain's retrieval of his good sense from the edge of criminal intent and activity -- back then. What an honest guy. What a maverick. WhooHoo.
Likewise, I am very put off by people, politicians, especially, who figure, and appeal to, some sort of lowest common denominator.
In June, the Washington Wire blog at WSJ.com published this interesting take on current applications of Swift Boat style political attacks:
June 30, 2008, 6:55 pm
McCain Supporter Defends Swift Boat Attacks
Laura Meckler reports on the presidential race from Harrisburg, Pa.
A group of John McCain’s supporters came together today to defend McCain against charges that he was overstating the importance of his military service. Many remember how Democrat John Kerry was wounded by attacks in 2004 on his military record, and the McCain campaign does not want to let any charge go unanswered. More important, the spat gives the McCain campaign a reason to talk about his military service, a topic that serves him well.
The conference call with reporters took an odd turn when the supporters were asked if the anti-McCain comments, including one issued Sunday by retired Gen. Wesley Clark, were analogous to charges issued by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Kerry in 2004. The group was condemned in many quarters, and today its very name — swift boat — is used as a synonym for a slimy political attack. Even McCain condemned the Swift Boat group in 2004.
But one McCain supporter, retired Col. Bud Day, who was held prisoner with McCain in Vietnam, said the attacks on McCain were nothing like the swift boat attacks. He helped produce those attacks against Kerry, which were true, he said. The attacks against McCain are not, he added.
Put all of this in the context of Sarah Palin's most recent idiocy -- and we are back to old-school backroom nonsense, made almost intolerable by this bright and shiny, now inane, now astute, new mouthpiece. She is paving the way for another detour from today's problems in order to reintroduce Jeremiah Wright, and -- undoubtedly -- Tony Rezko. God forbid she should address the economy in lieu of "associations" that have been explained and vetted ad nauseum.
Douglass K. Daniel goes beyond pointing out the blatant dishonesty of Palin's lowest-common-denominator approach and notes a frightening racial "subtext" in her golly-gosh-gee remarks:
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
The fact is that when racism creeps into the discussion, it serves a purpose for McCain. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.
John McCain occasionally says he looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol.
When the 2008 campaign is over will McCain say he regrets appeals such as Palin's?
I am sorely, sorely disappointed. This was supposed to be the election of all elections, wherein dialogue was to be on point, on policy, and all about respecting the intelligence of the American electorate. Instead we are left with inflammatory analogies that kill the intellectual rigor most had been hungrily anticipating for the presidential elections of 2008.
Barack Obama and William Ayers = John McCain and Charles H. Keating, Jr.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The Haddock Corporation's newest dictate: Anonymous comments are no longer allowed. It is easy enough to register and just takes a moment. We look forward to hearing from you non-bots and non-spammers!