Is this supposed to be “straight talk”?
April 2nd, 2008 at 07:25am Pat Cunningham
Â
For a one-issue candidate, John McCain is often shockingly confused about details concerning that issue, as we see HERE and HERE.
You can’t help but wonder how the man would handle that dreaded call at 3 a.m. at the White House.
POSTSCRIPT: HERE’s another good take on the matter.
Entry Filed under: War in Iraq, John McCain
7 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
“We are the ones we have been waiting for” Huh
2. Henry | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Digby is always right on the money.
3. Pat Cunningham | April 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 am
By the way, Henry, it was a long time before I realized that Digby is a woman. Call it latent sexism or whatever, but I always thought Digby was a guy. I don’t know why one’s writing would reveal their gender unless it was specifically indicated by subject matter, but it never occurred to me that she was a woman until I saw video of her speaking at a conference.
4. Chuck | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Pat, did Obama’s NAFTA bashing in Ohio, followed by his campaign’s wink-and-nod memo to the Canadians instructing that they should pay no mind to it, because it’s just political grand-standing qualify as “straight talk”?
I’m sure you’re familiar with it, but just in care you’re not, here it is from a source you’re probably comfortable with: http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/
Did it not trouble you that his speech to Ohio workers rightfully fearful for their employment future “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,” or is it only bad when Republicans (and now Hillary) lie?
5. Pat Cunningham | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Chuck: Why do you fail to address McCain’s apparent confusion regarding the one issue on which he claims to be an expert, the war in Iraq? As for Obama and NAFTA, the Canadian consulate in Chicago issued a statement that “there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private.”
6. Chuck | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Pat: Because you get your info from the most liberal spots on the web. McCain could cure heart disease, and those guys would have a problem with it. That’s why I cited Slate.com for you (at least give me a nod for that), because it’s a source I figured you’d be comfortable with. I figured if it came from FOX News or even the AP you’d reject it outright.
The memo speaks for itself. He told the workers of Ohio something and he didn’t mean a word of it. That the Canadian consulte is doing its best to stay out of it doesn’t change it. According to NPR, Obama and Hillary have both voted for “virtually every free trade agreement that has crossed their desks”. Free trade is a pro-business stance, not a pro-labor stance. IMO, you are extending a huge break to Obama on this issue, and I doubt you’d give that same break to any Republican or to Hillary.
BTW, as an aside, I love talking politics, and I think this blog you’ve started is a great idea, especially for political junkies like me. Clearly slanted to the left, but you’re up front about that in your “warning” at the top of the page.
7. Pat Cunningham | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Thanks for the kind comment, and don’t take my occasional snarkiness personally.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed