Richard Cohen of the WaPo articulates the obvious about the flips-flops of McCain and Obama and the relative seriousness thereof:
But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.
Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.
Well, sure. It's also part of the reason that Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright was of much greater consequence than McCain's endorsement by Hagee (the length and depth of the Obama-Wright association was also important). It's why Obama's long-time association with unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers, which dates back to at least to 1987 when Ayers and Obama first joined forces on Chicago public school reform, is important - we are still getting to know Obama, who is now strolling back to the political center. And as I noted recently, we can't judge him by his speeches since he has back-pedaled from so many. And we can't judge him by his anorexic resume.
Oh, well - let's elect him and let historians sort it out. There's a plan!
McCain is also better able to articulate the reason for his changing his mind. Usually it's evaluation of new information, not failure to grasp the old.
Very critical difference there.
====================================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Furthermore, Obama doesn't give the impression of really changing his mind; he's just concealing his believes for short term political advantage, or at least that is the way it seems.
Authenticity is going to be something that drives the young away from Obama.
===============
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 03:35 PM
I don't know if the majority of young people are clued in enough to see his lack of authenticity, kim.
However, they may lose interest if for whatever reason he starts to be perceived as uncool or less cool than he used to be. The whole "I used to like X before he was popular" thing. He'll still be their friend on Facebook and all, but they might not bother to show up at the polls.
Of course, that is always a risk with young voters. But it's especially so with a candidate that relies as heavily on the ephemeral hipster factor as Obama does.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 24, 2008 at 03:45 PM
I say, drop the both of them and start fresh. New candidates for both parties!
Remember the Oct. 04 three-part series in FrontPageMagazine by Horowitz and Poe? The Shadow Party. Soros initiating McCain-Feingold, Soros/Hillary think tank, Mort Halperin, the same old clique back from Weathermen days.
Posted by: BL | June 24, 2008 at 03:47 PM
---
is what commends him to so many journalists.
---
Well, sure, if the electorate had no more sense than your average WaPo journalist, the election would be over.
Cohen's analysis carries considerably more water than weight.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 03:47 PM
Posted by: Neo | June 24, 2008 at 03:53 PM
I say drop the both of them. Start fresh with new candidates for both parties!
Remember the Oct 04 three-part series in FrontPageMagazine by Horowitz and Poe? "The Shadow Party." They show the direct connections of Soros to McCain, Hillary and now Obama, through the Soros group MoveOn, etc. Mort Halperin and the same old cabal since Weathermen, Pentagon Papers and Watergate days.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C995DDB-9F7D-4EB7-83A2-5304F950EB41
Posted by: BL | June 24, 2008 at 03:53 PM
Another core belief, adapted from his military days:
McCain 2008: Never Leave a Lobbyist Behind
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 04:02 PM
Coincidentally, I covered the same points as Cohen.
There is a fairly simple measure for judging Obama: his voting record.
Posted by: Karl | June 24, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Looks like the Republicans have flip-flopped on the flip-flop issue; somehow Kerry's being in the line of fire didn't garner the same consideration.
But of course the party is facing a near-death experience in this election cycle, so maybe Mr. Cohen could use that to justify its change of heart.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Usually it's evaluation of new information, not failure to grasp the old.
Which is why McCain's so-called "flip-flops" really aren't. I didn't want to buy a flat-screen TV when the 42" models were $5000. When they came down to $1500 I took the plunge. Is that a flip-flop? Being opposed to offshore drilling when oil is at $20/barrel is not inconsistent with favoring it when oil is $140/barrel.
Or, to quote Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Posted by: jimmyk | June 24, 2008 at 04:14 PM
---
Being opposed to offshore drilling when oil is at $20/barrel is not inconsistent with favoring it when oil is $140/barrel.
---
I agree; so it's OK if Obama changes his position on this as well?
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 04:17 PM
I agree; so it's OK if Obama changes his position on this as well?
Whether or not its okay is irrevelent. A better question is how inevitable is it?
Posted by: bad | June 24, 2008 at 04:37 PM
I agree; so it's OK if Obama changes his position on this as well?
Sure thing. In fact, I think it would be great if Obama changed all his positions to match McCain's.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 24, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Kerry's being in the line of fire for four months, during which he managed to acquire 3 Purple Hearts without missing a day of active duty, after which he left the theater at the earliest opportunity, didn't garner the same consideration as the six years McCain spent as a POW, enduring torture which left him with permanent physical disabilities, in the course of which he refused the opportunity to leave as dishonorable.
it's OK if Obama changes his position on [drilling] as well?
OK? It's inevitable. Obama's positions are like diapers: they are discovered to be full of carp, and then they are changed.
Posted by: bgates | June 24, 2008 at 04:42 PM
---
didn't garner the same consideration as the six years McCain spent
---
Just to point out the bleedin' obvious, Kerry wasn't running against McCain in 2004; he was running against Bush, who had zero months and zero purple hearts.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Kerry '04 was running against the traitor Kerry '73. He was just surprised that so many people remembered his perfidy so well.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 24, 2008 at 04:56 PM
If you haven't already, then hurry over and read J.R. Dunn's piece at American Thinker:
The Obama Left
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 05:00 PM
You're right; lying sacks beat traitors.
This year I guess it's senility vs energy.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Kerry '04 was running against the traitor Kerry '73. He was just surprised that so many people remembered his perfidy so well.
Amen.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Just to point out the bleedin' obvious
89, here is your quote:
Same consideration as....? Aren't you implicitly comparing Kerry to McCain here? In which case bgates' response is perfectly relevant. Please enlighten me if I'm misunderstanding you.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 24, 2008 at 05:03 PM
I guess the right's triad is the religious right, the economic right, and the psychotic right.
McCain is somewhat shaky on two of those, but that allows him to pick up a few independents, so probably balances out to some degree.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 05:06 PM
---
Aren't you implicitly comparing Kerry to McCain here?
---
No; I'm saying that in 2004 no one in the press said that Kerry's service gave him a pass on flip flop charges; McCain had nothing to do with 2004.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 05:08 PM
But you are comparing press treatment of Kerry's service in 04 and press treatment of McCain's service in 08. So again the bgates' response is spot on.
Posted by: boris | June 24, 2008 at 05:12 PM
I'm saying that in 2004 no one in the press said that Kerry's service, which consisted of four months in a war zone, during which he managed to acquire 3 Purple Hearts without missing a day of active duty, after which he left the theater at the earliest opportunity, gave him a pass on flip flop charges.
Posted by: bgates | June 24, 2008 at 05:13 PM
---
Aren't you implicitly comparing Kerry to McCain here?
---
On second thought, I see what you're saying here.
The press flip-flop is due to the comparison between Kerry then and McCain now. So I get that.
But it smacks more of partisan desperation than a truly thoughtful comparison. It's more of a "We really want to paint Obama as a flip-flopper, but how can we do that when McCain has the same problem? Oh! I know! He was in the military!"
Semms like he's back-fitting the data to suit his purposes. Of course we're all partisan here, so your conclusions may differ from mine. ;-)
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 05:19 PM
the psychotic right
Gee--I don't know what is more psychotic than this.
Posted by: glasater | June 24, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Anyway, no one is saying that McCain's service record gives him a pass on flip-flop charges. We are saying that (a) his so-called flip-flops aren't; (b) he has a long record, he's a pretty well-known entity, so even if he did flip-flop, it's not as damaging.
Posted by: jimmyk | June 24, 2008 at 05:23 PM
---
during which he managed to acquire 3 Purple Hearts without missing a day of active duty
---
Petraeus has zero purple hearts, but you guys seem to like him just fine.
There seems to be a pattern where only Republican military service is honorable.
Ever wonder why that might be?
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 05:26 PM
McCain is a flip flopper, that's flat undeniable. He will flip or flop a few more times before the elcetion. That won't change his lifetime ACU rating of 83 any more than Obama's contortions will raise his ACU rating of 8.
It's fine with me if Obama remains steadfast to his Marxist roots, it's also fine if he puts on a different shade of lipstick morning, noon, and night. It makes precisely as much difference as painting out the stripe on a skunk's back. No one downwind will be fooled for more than the time it takes to draw a breath and gag.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 24, 2008 at 05:27 PM
There seems to be a pattern where only Republican military service is honorable.
Ever wonder why that might be?
Well, in 26 years as a military wife, I never knew a democrat. Not saying there weren't some, but I never had the misfortune to run into any.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 05:30 PM
Petraeus has zero purple hearts, but you guys seem to like him just fine.
He did get shot through the chest that one time, but that was an accident. (Missed a couple days' active duty, though.)
Why is it you assume he's Republican? Is it his dedication to victory, or the fact that he won't slander fellow troops? (Hell, he even sent the kid who shot him in the chest to Ranger school.)
Posted by: bgates | June 24, 2008 at 05:39 PM
how can we do that when McCain has the same problem? Oh! I know! He was in the military and spent six years as a POW, enduring torture which left him with permanent physical disabilities, in the course of which he refused the opportunity to leave as dishonorable. Maybe we can claim that demonstrates some kind of resolve or determination, or, you know, "bravery" or whatever.
Posted by: bgates | June 24, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Petraeus has zero purple hearts, but you guys seem to like him just fine.
There seems to be a pattern where only Republican military service is honorable.
Logic doesn't seem to be 89's strong suit. Legitimate purple hearts confer a certain degree of honor, provided the honoree doesn't turn around and behave dishonorably. That doesn't imply they are the only way to achieve honor.
Posted by: jimmyk | June 24, 2008 at 05:44 PM
Well JFK and McGovern served honorably. Perot was unhappy in the navy, but he served his committment honorably and got out. Fritz Mondale was in the army. Dukakis was in the army, too. Dick Gephardt served in the Missouri Air National Guard from 65-71. Truman was in the army. So, anyway, the phenomenom of only Republicans serving honorably seems to be quite recent...
Posted by: cathyf | June 24, 2008 at 05:52 PM
Petraeus has zero purple hearts, but you guys seem to like him just fine.
What, a Purple Heart is required for honorable service? Don't think so. (And two of Kerry's three PH's are less honorable than having none, IMHO . . . which is one reason his early rotation doesn't sit well in some quarters.)
There seems to be a pattern where only Republican military service is honorable.
Huh? This from the "chickenhawk" or "General Betray-us" crowd? Yeah, there's a pattern of politicizing military service all right . . . but it doesn't seem to be the one you're proposing.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 24, 2008 at 05:56 PM
OT:Charlie has a neat article on trains at PJM and got an instalaunch. Congrats, Charlie!
Posted by: clarice | June 24, 2008 at 06:02 PM
Both Obama and John McCain have underestimated the gravity of the energy crisis. McCain has made a small concession to reality, but it is not enough.
Posted by: MikeS | June 24, 2008 at 06:03 PM
Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are.
Another challenge for Obamatons:
We know that he has accomplished nothing of merit, so we won't emabarass anyone by asking about accomplishments any more. The question now is that which Cohen posed so inelegantly:
Does Obama have any identifiable core beliefs (aside from "from each according to his ability", etc)? I have severe doubts that he does but I would be willing to examine an argument to the contrary.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 24, 2008 at 06:10 PM
Somehow I think these awards to General Petraeus trump Kerry's rice in the butt or was it the arm, or maybe his foot, who knows, PH.
Distinguished Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Army Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star (with “V” Device)
Joint Service Commendation Medal
Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Joint Service Achievement Medal
Army Achievement Medal
And that is before you even get to the unit and campaign awards.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 06:13 PM
McCain has made a small concession to reality, but it is not enough.
Yeah, I'd go even farther than that. One of the main drivers behind speculation in the oil market is that none of the major players (and especially the US) seem ready to do anything to address the underlying causes. Hence the bettors are all guessing prices will continue to rise, which becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we were to announce today implementation of a crash course to: 1) drill in ANWR and open off-shore drilling leases; 2) build pebble-bed nuclear reactors and develop a supply system for hydrogen-powered vehicles; 3) increase CAFE standards across the board whilst closing SUV loopholes--including a minimum requirement for hybrid/hydrogen/etc vehicles; then the price would come down tomorrow. Besides, we ought to do all that stuff anyway, so we might as well get started.
McCain didn't go far enough. Obama's actively on the wrong side.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 24, 2008 at 06:15 PM
I have always enjoyed reading this blog and the comments and have never posted a comment. Absolutely must now!! I do wish you could expel 89--is that possible? 89 is not worthy of responding to in any way.
Posted by: mary | June 24, 2008 at 06:20 PM
Sure Obama has core beliefs:
Like:
a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.
Oops, that's the definition of Marxist communism.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 06:21 PM
And Cecil, are you going to include money to help me replace my 30 mpg mid-sized SUV that I had intended to drive for at least 15 years? I can't afford to replace it. Since Feb 2005, I've put 16,000 miles on it. Am I really the problem?
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Mary,
If it's not 89, someone else will draw the assignment. JOM is a stop on the Short Bus route from now 'til November.
It could (and probably will) be worse.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 24, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Cecil:
McCain didn't go far enough.
Yup.
Obama's actively on the wrong side.
Double yup.
One wants to ease our worried minds and the other wants to to heal our souls.
Posted by: hit and run | June 24, 2008 at 06:28 PM
"Kerry's being in the line of fire for four months, during which he managed to acquire 3 Purple Hearts without missing a day of active duty,"
Or,it might be added,spending time on the offices of life,eating,sleeping going to the bathroom and a little poontang.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 24, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Am I really the problem?
The problem with SUVs is twofold: they were exempted from CAFE (so the Average Fuel Economy was not really an "average")--though that changed in the latest legislation, and now they're considered, though separately--and by 2011 AFAICT they are to be lumped into the rest of the passenger vehicles; and they're heavy, which makes them dangerous to the rest of the vehicles on the road in a collision (which discourages other buyers from purchasing lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles).
As to getting old SUVs off the road, that's normally done by attrition. But hopefully we can agree selling new, unnecessarily heavy, fuel inefficient vehicles is counterproductive.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 24, 2008 at 06:40 PM
"Petraeus has zero purple hearts, but you guys seem to like him just fine."
That might be because he is good at not getting injured.That is the whole point,getting some other poor bastard injured for their country.
But enough of Petraeus,what about Obama,what's he done.where's he been.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 24, 2008 at 06:41 PM
---
That might be because he is good at not getting injured.That is the whole point,getting some other poor bastard injured for their country.
---
So that makes McCain a failure in your eyes?
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 06:48 PM
Cecil-
One of the main drivers behind speculation in the oil market is that none of the major players (and especially the US) seem ready to do anything to address the underlying causes.
The "oil market" was unmoved by the Asia Oil And Gas Conference, the Jeddah Conference, yesterday's Kuwaiti production announcement, China's announcement regarding subsidy, Brazil's substantial drilling and exploration activities, or the recent movement of Western oil companies back into Iraq.
The "market" was moved by a Coloumbian terrorist attack on an oil pipeline (post-Jeddah, early Monday morning), continuing violence in Nigeria (although they seem to lose as much as 250k/bbl/day and most of the terrorist attacks there idle production of about 150k/bbl for about a week or so), and the back drop a saber rattling regarding Israel and Iran.
We're into Wiley E. Coyote "new paradigm" territory where supply increases will cause prices to go up and demand reduction will cause prices to go up.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 24, 2008 at 06:50 PM
darn it...Coloumbian->Colombian;
I always do that.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 24, 2008 at 06:52 PM
"So that makes McCain a failure in your eyes?"
No, he was shot down,most of his injuries were inflicted by his captors.But the man acquitted himself honourably and bravely.
What;s your boy;s claim to fame,other than marrying Michelle? Might be a Purple Heart in that.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 24, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Barrack Hussein Obama "Drags Bible through the gutter"
Posted by: PeterUK | June 24, 2008 at 07:21 PM
Barrack Hussein Obama "Drags Bible through the gutter"
Posted by: PeterUK | June 24, 2008 at 07:22 PM
"Petraeus has zero purple hearts, but you guys seem to like him just fine."
The purple hearts have nothing to do with it. I judge Petraeus to be an intelligent and honorable man. I judge Kerry to be neither.
Posted by: Abadman | June 24, 2008 at 07:25 PM
Kerry in 1968 was a known coward, in 1973 we found out he was a traitor, and now we also know he is a arrogant liar.
To my knowledge, Petraeus is none of those things.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 07:32 PM
"Mary,
If it's not 89, someone else will draw the assignment. JOM is a stop on the Short Bus route from now 'til November.
It could (and probably will) be worse.
posted by Rick Ballard"
Hey, just because the bus stops here and clowns, weirdos, and derelicts get off, doesn't mean we have to respond to them or enjoy reading their carp. I realize some of you enjoy the game -- but that is all it is, a game.
By giving them what they seek, you perpetuate their stay.
Posted by: I'm with Mary | June 24, 2008 at 07:44 PM
I prefer the Environmental Flop myself. For a guy who claims to be Green, his stance on nuclear power seems awkward. Then we learn that among his top donors is Exelon, the countries' largest nuclear power plant operator.
From Joshua Frank
And as Neo pointed out on the How Green Was My Candidate Thread, Thomas G Ayers was chairman and CEO of a company that merged into Exelon.
How's them grassroots?
Posted by: Rocco | June 24, 2008 at 07:53 PM
---
For a guy who claims to be Green,
---
Yes, some of us accept that nukes may be preferable to burning coal for generating electricity.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 08:01 PM
---
Kerry in 1968 was a known coward, in 1973 we found out he was a traitor, and now we also know he is a arrogant liar.
---
Lovely.
If Bush was a Democrat, Republicans would be saying that he spent the 60's snorting coke off dead hooker's asses.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 08:22 PM
89,
Paid by the word or the post?
Posted by: Chris | June 24, 2008 at 08:30 PM
---
Paid by the word or the post?
---
Both; the RNC wants me to keep the troops whipped into a frenzy until November.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 08:34 PM
McCain should remind voters that our economy is dependent upon reasonably priced oil.
Posted by: MikeS | June 24, 2008 at 08:39 PM
You won't find too many who can be 'whipped into a frenzy' here. Do you find it odd that you're allowed to post your views on a (any) center-right blog but we would not be allowed to do the same on the majority of left-leaning ones?
Your sardonic prose is not a threat to anyone here but apparently we are a threat to your ideological cohorts.
Posted by: Chris | June 24, 2008 at 08:40 PM
If Bush was a Democrat, Republicans would be saying that he spent the 60's snorting coke off dead hooker's asses.
Yes, someone might "be saying that" but finding anyone to verify it is the problem. With Kerry, we have an entire generation of honorable veterans to verify, including highly decorated (like Medal of Honor) men who served with him or at the same time and place.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 08:44 PM
Oh, and during the '60s Bush must have been a super guy if "he spent the 60's snorting coke off dead hooker's asses," and at the same time managed an undergrad degree from Yale (better grades than Kerry), an MBA from Harvard and successfully training to be a jet fighter pilot. If I'd only known, imagine what I could have accomplished with a line of coke and a dead gigolo. Boggles the mind.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 08:50 PM
---
but we would not be allowed to do the same on the majority of left-leaning ones?
---
I'm not a dkos kinda guy, so I can't speak to them. But most of the lib sites I read allow dissenting views.
And some of the right-wing blogs don't accept dissent, so I'm not sure it's a right/left distinction.
If you have stats, I'd like to see them.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 08:51 PM
---
entire generation
---
Show me an 'entire generation' that ever agreed on anything.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 08:53 PM
I agree; so it's OK if Obama changes his position on this as well?
Does he have one?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 24, 2008 at 08:55 PM
Dissenting views are one thing, hooker's a#%es are another, entirely. And I gave up years ago offering any dissenting opinion on left-leaning blogs as my comments were, more often than not, disappeared. No differing comments, no stats. Neat, that.
Posted by: Chris | June 24, 2008 at 08:56 PM
Show me an 'entire generation' that ever agreed on anything.
You have a point, to be accurate, we must subtract the members of that exemplary ragtag band known as the Winter Soldiers.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 09:14 PM
---
a#%es are another
---
'Ass', used in jest, is less repulsive than coward, traitor, etc. used in earnest.
Politics has long been familiar with sexual innuendo; rumors were floated about McCain fathering an illegitimate black child, and of course gynecological terms are not foreign to McCain himself.
Some folks also seemed quite disappointed that the invocation of oral sex failed to remove a Democrat from office; it rankles them to this day.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 09:17 PM
---
You have a point, to be accurate, we must subtract the members of that exemplary ragtag band known as the Winter Soldiers.
---
Hyperbole: the currency of the internet.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 09:19 PM
Links to McCain flip-flops; maybe Cohen is right and service to his country gives him carte blanche. But I doubt it.
Military service sure didn't get Carter much consideration when the economy was crap under his watch, and it didn't carry Dole or Kerry.
youtube
link
link
flip-flop list
link
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 09:27 PM
I agree that the best way to get 89 to go away is to ignore him/her. I'm not opposed to hearing alternate points of view, but they need to be expressed intelligently.
But my comment is about CAFE standards. I'm surprised to see support for them. They're a really bad way to achieve the goal of reduced oil consumption. A gasoline tax makes much more sense. CAFE standards force people to buy cars they don't want, that are less safe, and the fuel consumption gains are partially offset by increased driving. (I will add that I'm not particularly in favor of artificially reducing oil consumption. I'd rather see expansion of supply.)
Posted by: jimmyk | June 24, 2008 at 09:42 PM
Gordon Smith (R-OR) ♥ Obama
link
---
"Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment?" the ad asks. "Barack Obama! He joined with Gordon and broke through a 20-year deadlock to pass new laws which increase gas mileage for automobiles."
---
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 09:44 PM
OT:Charlie has a neat article on trains at PJM and got an instalaunch. Congrats, Charlie!
I'll be damned. hadn't even noticed Glenn picked it up.
Now if I could only get him to use my byline....
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 24, 2008 at 09:47 PM
I have always enjoyed reading this blog and the comments and have never posted a comment. Absolutely must now!! I do wish you could expel 89--is that possible?
Hi Mary,
TM doesn't seem to expel people - but what I notice is the regulars are now dwindling. Most of us don't like conversations that go in endless circles.
Perhaps someone can send a bulk email when 89 gets bored with being a troll.
Posted by: Jane | June 24, 2008 at 09:49 PM
'Ass', used in jest, is less repulsive than coward, traitor, etc. used in earnest.
The problem with defending Kerry's record with this sort of thing is that there are very good reasons to use that sort of term in describing him. You don't have to invent dead hookers (or failed flight physicals, memoranda, or any such nonsense).
Yeah, and just to be clear about this: there's nothing dishonorable in getting injured. Nor, really, in applying for a Purple Heart for that injury, even if you suspect it might not be warranted. It is, IMHO, crossing the line to pursue such a decoration after being told by one's commander that it wasn't appropriate. It's definitely bad form to change the write-up of the events to reflect a more convenient reality . . . and flat-out dishonorable to use those, if garnered in such a way, to escape one's duty, especially if it involved risks associated with combat.
I'm comfortably persuaded John Kerry did all the above, which makes me disinclined to rate his service as "honorable." But that's hardly remarkable, nor is it the reason he's so roundly despised by many vets. It's his poorly-sourced broad-brush accusations against his fellow servicemembers, for political gain, that makes him a pariah. And for that, IMHO, he richly deserves whatever epithets people choose to bestow upon him.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 24, 2008 at 09:49 PM
Via Flopping Aces:
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 09:54 PM
coward, traitor, etc. used in earnest
Kerry's public betrayals of the military carry more heft as provocation than whatever it is that provoks the nasty personal slander that you favor.
Ol' BJ has nothing to complain about after Clarence Thomas or Bob Packwood. One Rather imagines that if Dan Quayle were president after Bush 41 and caught with Lewinsky Willey and Flowers along with a credible Juanita the same way, a dimorat congress would have impeached him right pronto. If you imagine otherwise you're as big an idiot as you seem.
Somehow the feigned "outrage" that a Navy officer would use a four letter word coming from a potty pen like yours rings a little hollow junior.
Posted by: boris | June 24, 2008 at 09:54 PM
Yeah, Jane, I too have noticed that the regular commenters just aren't interested in playing the 89 troll game.
His comments are pointless, only meant to distract.
Posted by: centralcal | June 24, 2008 at 09:54 PM
I've heard the Winter Soldiers great unwashed called many things, but Internet hyperbole has never been one of them, until today.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Well, centracal, they get out more than some of us, who have to take our fun where we find it.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Yes, thats why McCain can get away with not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shite. Thanks for explaining it so clearly.
Posted by: Jor | June 24, 2008 at 10:06 PM
---
Somehow the feigned "outrage"
---
I don't think I ever expressed outrage, feigned or otherwise. I'm more taken aback by McCain having the poor judgment and character to call his wife that, especially in front of other people.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM
may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win
That might explain the internet donations which are comfortably under the reporting limits, no??????? Somebody investigate this, please.
Just to point out the bleedin' obvious, Kerry wasn't running against McCain in 2004; he was running against Bush, who had zero months and zero purple hearts.
Just to be fair. Doesn't Bush have as much or more time in the Air National Gaurd as Kerry had in the NAVAL RESERVE??????
What's it with these trolls, and, ya know, the facts and stuff.
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM
I look on eightnine as a person of wit, intelligence, and humour, who has simply taken on the protective coloration of his surroundings. Give him another twenty years of thinking about the conditions of life and he'll be a neocon, classic liberal, like many on this board. I've had the experience of living in one town where I was too liberal to fit in and in another where I was too conservative. Wit like his, though, crosses idealogical lines. Compare him with the jackasses on the Moveon thread of a few days ago. And yes, Eightnine, when you consider changing, remember, it's OK to flipflop, if you mean it.
====================================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 10:15 PM
C'mon, eightnine, that remark was deplorable, but it hardly demonstrates McCain's poor judgement and lack of character. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It seems she has forgiven him; how much harder would it be for you to forgive him?
Don't let hyperbole warp you out of orbit.
==================================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Yes, thats why McCain can get away with not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shite.
This, like "100 years war" is dishonest (and hence a staple of the left).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 24, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Perhaps we should revisit TM's assessment of Richard Cohen as of a mere 6 weeks ago.
I know, I know- when he says something we agree with, it's because it's so obviously true that even the clueless are forced to acknowledge it ;).
Posted by: Foo Bar | June 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM
---
I've had the experience of living in one town where I was too liberal to fit in and in another where I was too conservative.
---
I worked in Cambridge, MA for years; too weird-liberal for me. Happy to visit though, in an odd anthropological way, just to see the 'wildlife'.
And I live in a red neighborhood; friends & neighbors here are generally R's. They think of me as the local eccentric.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Round here you're the local minimum.
Posted by: boris | June 24, 2008 at 10:27 PM
One of the things I've noticed is that eightnine frequently retails the ignorant canards of the left in an almost ironic tone; it lacks the knuckle dragging vituperation of most of those spouting those lies. Believe it or not, eightnine doubts.
======================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 10:27 PM
You've hit the nail on the head, there, eightnine, when you mention that your red neighbors consider you eccentric. Were the situation reversed, you'd be the target of hatred, not amusement.
==================================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 10:30 PM
You know Foobar, you and eightnine really have a lot in common. You both belong to the better class of troll, er, uh, dissenter.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 10:31 PM
---
but it hardly demonstrates McCain's poor judgement and lack of character
---
I can curse a blue streak in the classic Samuel L Jackson manner, but I have never in my life called a woman that word. Ever.
It just seems foreign to me, and I think it shows an absolute disregard not only for the woman, but it also puts the other people in an awkward situation.
So I'm not shocked, but I think it does say something about his temperament. And not in the political 'suitability for office' sense, but just in a more visceral sense.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 24, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I feel like we keep going to a family reunion and the drunk uncle is still there making us all want to go home.
And since the drunk uncle has no sense of humor, or will care or remember what you said to him, lets talk about a caption for this picture at JAKE TAPPER
I have never been prouder in my adult life for being tall. :)
Posted by: Ann | June 24, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Lives a woman who hasn't heard that word applied to herself? Yes, I suppose there does.
================================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 10:36 PM