McCain camp's worst nightmare.

[bairdi]

This may be an opinion piece, but it is pretty much on the money.


The McCain Campaign's Worst Nightmare
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

For months the McCain campaign has been attempting to separate him from George Bush and it finally seems to have worked. They must be thrilled with this headline from the NY Times.

Bush and McCain Seem to Diverge in Foreign Policy

Perfect. McCain is the reasonable centrist. Bush is the crazy man nobody likes. This is exactly what they've been pushing for. Oh wait...

Essentially, as the Bush administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the decision of Mr. McCain, of Arizona, to adhere to his more hawkish positions illustrates the continuing influence of neoconservatives on his thinking even as they are losing clout within the administration.

Whether the perception of Mr. McCain as being at odds with the administration is politically advantageous for him is a matter of debate among his supporters, but many of his more conservative advisers do not think it is a bad thing.

“There’s no doubt, particularly as Bush has adopted policies in the direction of Obama, that that gives Obama bragging rights,” said John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, who has sharply criticized the administration’s talks with Iran and North Korea. “But if you believe as I do that this administration is in the midst of an intellectual collapse, it doesn’t hurt McCain. Occasionally in politics it helps to be right.”

Could this be any worse for the McCain campaign? These guys spent months trying to cultivate an image of a more moderate and reasonable foreign policy than George Bush. The LA World Affairs Council Speech was all about portraying McCain as being better with our European allies. The nuclear speech was supposed to make McCain seem more reasonable about international institutions. But it's hard to make that arugment when on the most fundamental questions of war and peace you are as conservative and hawkish as John McCain. It seems to finally have caught up with him.

On top of that. Who is standing up for him and agreeing with his policies? None other than John Bolton. A guy who spends his days criticizing the Bush Administration for being too soft.



Bottom line: from the start of this campaign one of the central imperatives for the McCain campaign was to distance itself from George Bush's extreme foreign policy. They seem to have failed and that is some seriously bad news for John McCain.

July 25, 2008 at 08:18 PM | Permalink
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/07/the-mccain-camp.html

[SeedyROM]

McCain has more in common with Reagan than Bush. But like you said this is an opinion piece. Both candidates have many flaws no doubt.

[bairdi]

McCain has more in common with Reagan than Bush. But like you said this is an opinion piece. Both candidates have many flaws no doubt.
Joe Klein had an interesting article in this week's Time magazine where he notes that McCain's has aligned himself with neoconservatives when it comes to foreign policy. McCain may have had more in common with Reagan at one time, but I believe his position has changed to one that is more in line with Bush's.

Wednesday, Jul. 23, 2008
McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration
By Joe Klein

"I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war," John McCain said during a Rochester, N.H., town meeting on July 22. "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." It was a remarkable statement, as intemperate a personal attack as I've ever heard a major-party candidate make in a presidential campaign, the sort of thing that no potential President of the United States should ever be caught saying. (A prudent candidate has aides sling that sort of mud.) It was also inevitable.

You could see McCain's frustration building as Barack Obama traipsed elegantly through the Middle East while the pillars of McCain's bellicose regional policy crumbled in his wake. It wasn't only that the Iraqi government seemed to take Obama's side in the debate over when U.S. forces should leave (sooner rather than later). McCain was being undermined in Washington as well, by his old pal George W. Bush, who seemed to take Obama's side in the debate about whether to talk to Iran. Bush sent a ranking U.S. diplomat to negotiate with the Iranians on nuclear issues — and also let it be known that a U.S. Interests Section could soon be established in Tehran, the first U.S. diplomatic presence on Iranian soil since the 1979 hostage crisis.

In the end, both Obama and McCain seemed to have a piece of the truth about Iraq, but Obama's truth was larger and more strategic. Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal — a plan already hinted at by Bush. And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don't want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years. McCain's piece of the truth was tactical: he was right about the surge and right about the brilliance of David Petraeus' battle plan, which had helped quiet down Iraq. McCain was justifiably infuriated that Obama wouldn't acknowledge that success — indeed, Obama seemed to understand that he was pushing McCain's buttons, hoping perhaps to elicit McCain's Vesuvian temper, and in Rochester the eruption occurred.

McCain's greatest claim to the presidency — his overseas expertise — now seems squandered. He has appeared brittle and inflexible, slow to adapt to changes on the ground, slow to grasp the full implications not only of the improving situation in Iraq but also of the worsening situation in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan. Some will say this behavior raises questions about his age. I'll leave those to gerontologists. A more obvious explanation is that McCain has straitjacketed himself in an ideology focused more on enemies (real and imagined) than on opportunities. "It is impossible to ignore the many striking parallels between [McCain] and the so-called neoconservatives (many of whom are vocal and visible supporters of his candidacy)," writes the Democratic diplomat Richard Holbrooke in a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs. "I don't know if John has become a neocon," says a longtime friend of the Senator's, "but he sure has surrounded himself with them."

Neoconservatism in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy. McCain hasn't always sided with the neocons — he opposed torture, wants to close down Guantánamo — but his pugnacity seems a natural fit with theirs. He has been militant on Iran, though even there his statements have been tactical rather than strategic: his tactic is not to talk to the bad guys.

The strategic question here is whether to go for regime change or diplomatic engagement. McCain hasn't said he was for regime change, but he has rattled sabers noisily, joked about bomb-bomb-bombing Iran and surrounded himself with, and been funded by, Jewish neoconservatives who believe Iran is a threat to Israel's existence. He has also taken a rather exotic line on Russia, which he wants to drum out of the G-8 organization of major industrial powers (a foolish proposal, since none of the other G-8 members would abide by it). His notion of a "League of Democracies" seems a transparent attempt to draw a with-us-or-against-us line in the sand against Russia and China. But that's the point: McCain would place a higher priority on finding new enemies than on cultivating new friends.

The sudden collapse of McCain's Middle East policy is a stunning event, although McCain's regional stridency raised questions from the start. This is a long campaign — with, I fearlessly predict, at least one major Obama downdraft to come — but John McCain seems panicked, and in deep trouble now.

* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1826064,00.html

[Smurf-Herder]

Joe Klein had an interesting article in this week's Time magazine where he notes that McCain's has aligned himself with neoconservatives when it comes to foreign policy. McCain may have had more in common with Reagan at one time, but I believe his position has changed to one that is more in line with Bush's.

Wednesday, Jul. 23, 2008
McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration
By Joe Klein

"I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war," John McCain said during a Rochester, N.H., town meeting on July 22. "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." It was a remarkable statement, as intemperate a personal attack as I've ever heard a major-party candidate make in a presidential campaign, the sort of thing that no potential President of the United States should ever be caught saying. (A prudent candidate has aides sling that sort of mud.) It was also inevitable.

You could see McCain's frustration building as Barack Obama traipsed elegantly through the Middle East while the pillars of McCain's bellicose regional policy crumbled in his wake. It wasn't only that the Iraqi government seemed to take Obama's side in the debate over when U.S. forces should leave (sooner rather than later). McCain was being undermined in Washington as well, by his old pal George W. Bush, who seemed to take Obama's side in the debate about whether to talk to Iran. Bush sent a ranking U.S. diplomat to negotiate with the Iranians on nuclear issues — and also let it be known that a U.S. Interests Section could soon be established in Tehran, the first U.S. diplomatic presence on Iranian soil since the 1979 hostage crisis.

In the end, both Obama and McCain seemed to have a piece of the truth about Iraq, but Obama's truth was larger and more strategic. Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal — a plan already hinted at by Bush. And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don't want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years. McCain's piece of the truth was tactical: he was right about the surge and right about the brilliance of David Petraeus' battle plan, which had helped quiet down Iraq. McCain was justifiably infuriated that Obama wouldn't acknowledge that success — indeed, Obama seemed to understand that he was pushing McCain's buttons, hoping perhaps to elicit McCain's Vesuvian temper, and in Rochester the eruption occurred.

McCain's greatest claim to the presidency — his overseas expertise — now seems squandered. He has appeared brittle and inflexible, slow to adapt to changes on the ground, slow to grasp the full implications not only of the improving situation in Iraq but also of the worsening situation in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan. Some will say this behavior raises questions about his age. I'll leave those to gerontologists. A more obvious explanation is that McCain has straitjacketed himself in an ideology focused more on enemies (real and imagined) than on opportunities. "It is impossible to ignore the many striking parallels between [McCain] and the so-called neoconservatives (many of whom are vocal and visible supporters of his candidacy)," writes the Democratic diplomat Richard Holbrooke in a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs. "I don't know if John has become a neocon," says a longtime friend of the Senator's, "but he sure has surrounded himself with them."

Neoconservatism in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy. McCain hasn't always sided with the neocons — he opposed torture, wants to close down Guantánamo — but his pugnacity seems a natural fit with theirs. He has been militant on Iran, though even there his statements have been tactical rather than strategic: his tactic is not to talk to the bad guys.

The strategic question here is whether to go for regime change or diplomatic engagement. McCain hasn't said he was for regime change, but he has rattled sabers noisily, joked about bomb-bomb-bombing Iran and surrounded himself with, and been funded by, Jewish neoconservatives who believe Iran is a threat to Israel's existence. He has also taken a rather exotic line on Russia, which he wants to drum out of the G-8 organization of major industrial powers (a foolish proposal, since none of the other G-8 members would abide by it). His notion of a "League of Democracies" seems a transparent attempt to draw a with-us-or-against-us line in the sand against Russia and China. But that's the point: McCain would place a higher priority on finding new enemies than on cultivating new friends.

The sudden collapse of McCain's Middle East policy is a stunning event, although McCain's regional stridency raised questions from the start. This is a long campaign — with, I fearlessly predict, at least one major Obama downdraft to come — but John McCain seems panicked, and in deep trouble now.

* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1826064,00.html

Too many rabbit trails to go down in response to this - each probably deserving a thread of their own. But I do want to comment on this:

"also let it be known that a U.S. Interests Section could soon be established in Tehran, the first U.S. diplomatic presence on Iranian soil since the 1979 hostage crisis"

Has it crossed anyone's mind that this could be a cover, for a convenient CIA link with internal elements in Iran; which could help with overthrowing the current regime .......... lowering the need for, or limiting any future military action?

[SeedyROM]

Okay, but you know Time magazine is also owned by the same parent company as the NYTImes. Lot of opinion and left centered media bias.

Obama had already flipped in favor of continueing troops in Iraq, not losing the war. This article was released after Obama flipp flopped.

McCain's Vesuvian temper Another fake attempt by Dems to Villianify McCain, the anger crap is false, it came out of Hillary's camp. Small fake nonsense, like Obama doesn't have an angry face a times, but the fact is he's just thinking and talking and the facial expressions are mis-read right? Same as McCain. The media focus on small stuff and infest readers minds with the drama, they sell the sizzle, not the steak!

Why doesn't the media mention Obama's angry face and loud shouting demeanor??

McCain is being honest about Iran and he routinely uses diplomacy first then war. The media love to pretend he's the bad man. And Obama talks of the same invasion of Iran............and Pakistan too. But he's a peace president, right. I've got it now!!

I don't see a similarity with neocons, just the drama to sell magazines and a weak theory that McCain is a neocon. So long as the media use those words we'll know the bias and false information is still out there. So much for the truth.

Two opinion pieces from biased media sources is not proof McCain is siding with neocons but his strategy is similar, but that does not make him a neocon.