I'll Be On Blog Talk Radio Tonight

Come listen to the Total Education Show tonight at 8pm Pacific time. Neil Hayley (The Total Tutor), Larry Sand, Darren Miller, Jason The Public School Guy and I will engage in another debate. You can call in! Check out the link.

It is a left/right type of thing with Larry and Darren fighting against unions, tenure and reasonableness.  Jason and I will argue that unions do good, high-stakes tests should not be high-stakes, and charters are the first step in the privatization of public education.

Should be fun!

Caption Contest

Joe The Plumber And Keating

From Hullabaloo:

Oh. My. God.

by tristero

We can't be this lucky:

Joe the Plumber, the star of tonight's debate, may have a very interesting connection to John McCain. In fact, Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher) of Cincinnati, Ohio may be related to one Robert Wurzelbacher of Cincinnati, Ohio, who happens to be Charles Keating's son-in-law.

Robert Wurzelbacher was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal, and sentenced to 40 months in prison in 1993.

Wurzelbacher is also a huge Republican donor.

So, let's find out a bit about Joe Wurzelbacher.

Whoa.

Update: Nope!

Palin Debate Flow Chart

Have you seen this yet?

h/t adennak

Hertzberg On Palin's Debate Performance

Rick is funny. Really funny in fact. Like this from his latest:

Most of the commentators, again, seemed to get it wrong, mainly because they were grading on a curve. Palin did “better than expected.” On the other hand, she had been expected to do so poorly that she could hardly fail to do better than expected, i.e., she was expected to do better than expected, which means that she did about as well as expected. But according to the insta-polls, the electorate, as opposed to what I once called the expectorate, seems to have concluded fairly clearly that Biden “won,” possibly because what the electorate was expecting was a debate between two candidates for Vice-President, not the raw materials for some arcane calculation of who exceeded whose expectations. Biden succeeded in making a case for the Obama-Biden ticket. Palin succeeded mainly in making a case that she, Palin, is a person of near-normal intelligence and great superior adorability.

Read the whole thing after expansion...

October 3, 2008
Nudge Nudge Wink Wink

Well, if what we want is a perky President (actuarial probabilities being what they are), the choice is clear: go whalin’ with Palin! No doubt about it, she’s as cute as a Goldwater button. And if by some chance she doesn’t put McCain over the top, her next career move is obvious: co-hosting the perennially last-place CBS morning program. She could ace the cooking and celebrity segments, and by the time this campaign is over she’ll even know enough about legislation and foreign policy and stuff like that to banter with Jeff Greenfield and handle serious interviews with people like Richard Holbrooke and Michael Beschloss. “The Early Show,” with Harry Smith and Sarah Palin.

Did she “win” last night? In a way. She stanched the bleeding. If her activities for the next month can be limited to charming the “base” at rallies, chatting with right-wing talk-radio and Fox News hosts, and granting interviews to dim, carefully vetted “Eyewitness News” local anchors, she probably will do no further damage to the Republican ticket. Given the disasters of the last couple of weeks, that counts as victory. Maybe not Trafalgar-type victory, but Iraq-type. The surge has succeeded.

The choppy format, which discouraged follow-ups, saved her, along with Gwen Ifill’s tendency to ask questions (Does the financial crisis show the best of Washington or the worst of Washington? What’s scarier, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan?) that could be answered with the word “both.” Beyond the “Animal Farm” certainties—taxes bad, victory good—and the hockey-mom patter, Palin had nothing to say, but she said it without too much of the usual syntactical chaos. The talking points and the buzzwords (maverick, the people’s side) got her through.

Most of the commentators, again, seemed to get it wrong, mainly because they were grading on a curve. Palin did “better than expected.” On the other hand, she had been expected to do so poorly that she could hardly fail to do better than expected, i.e., she was expected to do better than expected, which means that she did about as well as expected. But according to the insta-polls, the electorate, as opposed to what I once called the expectorate, seems to have concluded fairly clearly that Biden “won,” possibly because what the electorate was expecting was a debate between two candidates for Vice-President, not the raw materials for some arcane calculation of who exceeded whose expectations. Biden succeeded in making a case for the Obama-Biden ticket. Palin succeeded mainly in making a case that she, Palin, is a person of near-normal intelligence and great superior adorability.

Richard Stern Rips PBS A New One!

Richard Stern is a novelist and emeritus professor of English at the University of Chicago.

It's 50 minutes after the vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. The losers were David Brooks, Mark Shields, and other commentators supposedly hired by television executives for intelligence, sensitivity, and ability to articulate clear-eyed responses and titillate viewers with their amusing and thoughtful reactions to political events. That these two regulars on PBS's "The NewsHour" failed to see that Sarah Palin's brassy, blind narcissism, chirpy ignorance, evasiveness, broken syntax, self-vaunting folksiness, and robotic falsity disqualified her for important public office should be their end as commentators. That they did not commend the essentially thoughtful, well- and widely-informed performance of Joe Biden should cancel their television contracts. The contrast between his intelligence and her stupidity, yes, stupidity, was too clear to be missed by all but blazing partisans.

Yes, this writer is partisan, but makes some attempt to accurately appraise what he sees and hears. That is more important than most causes. Otherwise, value systems will disintegrate and the boundaries between right and wrong, vice and virtue, truth and falsity will be destroyed. Brooks and Shields abandoned the standard to which they've given more than lip service. If their failure should help lead to the elevation of a foolish, almost willfully ignorant person and the defeat of a thoughtful, humane, and articulate public servant, I hope they marinate for years in what oozed from them tonight.

I've been proud that Brooks had been a student of mine at the University of Chicago. That pride has turned to ashes. As for Shields, it has been a minor pleasure to hear political insights he'd gathered over years of reportorial work.

No more. Working such special streets of punditry as "Who came up to expectations?" "Would Biden gaffe his way into headlines?" or "Would Palin again reveal the ignorance she showed on the Katie Couric interview?" this Tweedledum and Tweedledee of savvy politics failed to distinguish what was basic, namely which of these two candidates could head the American government. May they rot in Commentator Hell.

--Richard Stern

Ouch!

dylanposer On The Debate

Another TNR commenter chimes in. They are smart over there (that's why I have my own blog)!

dylanposer said:

I think Palin was at her best when she stared into the camera earnestly, dropped the snark, and tied key words, objects, subjects, and predicates together as she adressed the public as adults. But this only came out in the glinting of very few moments. The majority of her split narrative smacked of snark, a character that comes off sounding like a waitress at a neo-Wymoing suburban steakhouse. Perhaps Longhorn's. This downhome folksiness, of course, is Bushian, and belies any attempts she made to distinguish McCain/Palin from Bush/Cheney. That Steve Schmidt thinks it is adventageous to have Palin employ such snark when the subject is about something as grave as say, the Iraq War or the illiquidity of "toxic" assets, it is more than cliche and disingenuous; it is macabre. Perhaps addressing the public as a winking trophy-wife curries favor among evangelical types, but it probably pisses off everyone else they were hoping to influence.

This is all fine with me, though. I am losing five bucks in watching her stay in the race, which is a small price to pay (knocks on wood) in exchange for a Democrat landslide.

Williamyard On The Debate II

williamyard said:

Biden/Palin was a pure sequel of Obama/McCain: one person substantive, calm, polite; the other screeching platitudes while attacking the opponent.

It boggles my mind that the McCain camp is so incompetent that they said, "Hey, that tactic was a total loser in the Presidential debate--let's use it again in the Veep debate!" In both cases independents didn't fall for it and punished the perps, as they should have.

In the next debate it wouldn't surprise me if McCain pulls off his shoe and sock, takes out a nail puller and yanks out one of his toenails. "Whaddaya think of THAT, America?" he'll say, waving the bloody toenail high overhead. Then after a few minutes of stunned silence from everyone else in the room, he says, "Nothing, huh? Okay, you leave me no alternative" and pulls out another one.

Meanwhile they should trot out Palin to every media outlet they can find to make the claim that Obama is the Anti-Christ. "Do you know what happens when a plague of frogs descends on your son's hockey game?" she'll ask, pausing to lick a fresh gleam around her tattooed lip liner.

Desperate times call for desperate actions. Or, to quote Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

Sarah Palin On Education

From last night's debate:

Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I’m glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he’s a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here’s a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It’s not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it’s near and dear to my heart. I’m very, very concerned about where we’re going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.

My reward is in Heaven. Good to know, though I'd rather have my reward while I'm alive so I can send my kid to college!

And is it too much to ask that a VP candidate speak English?

Update: Added the best part (first sentence)

More Debate Reaction

My favorite critique of the night is over at The Edge Of The American West. My favorite line is:

I admit: unedited transcripts make everyone sound like an idiot. However, so does sounding like an idiot.

Initial debate impression

October 2, 2008 in history and current events | by SEK

Tonight the Republican Party outed itself as the proud parent of a C- student:

Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

I admit: unedited transcripts make everyone sound like an idiot. However, so does sounding like an idiot. I’m with Burke and Bérubé on this one: she sounded like a student bluffing her way through an exam she crammed for three hours earlier. At times she was passable — but only barely. She tacked back to her charted course five seconds into every answer, irrespective of the question, because she could only fit so much on those notecards the cameras didn’t once catch her repeatedly shuffling through — did I just call them notecards?

I meant cheat sheets. Please, America, I beg of you: be as smart as the squiggly lines CNN had representing your core convictions are accurate. Live up to the ideals embodied by those squiggly lines our Founding Fathers.

Who Won The Debate?

Biden won.

Palin sounded uninformed despite changing the rules of the debate by declaring she may not answer the questions as asked because she wants to talk to the American People. Um, hey! American People! She thinks you don't want to hear her answer questions! Be insulted!

Anyway, Biden was boring in the beginning, but wonky and right. Then he got kinda hot, rollin' the McCain fuckups like an auctioneer. He countered all her fabrications and misrepresentations without being impolite; he was respectful and gave his all.

She held up visually, and remained so happy! She said a few things many times, especially when she couldn't respond to the question.

And what about the Achilles Heel thing. Did she ignore it, or is she unaware of it?

Live Debate Blogging

Greed, maverick. Partisan maverick. As mayor, as Governor. Blah, blah. Oh Joe! Nookyaler.

The VP Debate

I've been thinking about the Biden/Palin debate coming up. Expectations a pretty low for her, and high for him. I think the Palin pick by McCain was an insult, as does most of the country.

Here's an idea.

Biden should cancel the debate. He should say he refuses to debate her because it is an insult. He should offer to debate McCain instead. He is at least less incoherent than she.

Thoughts?

Biden's Dilemma

Biden is scheduled to debate Sarah Palin on October 2, 2008. There is only one little problem; how does Biden do it without looking like a bully?

Breaking the Fourth Wall: How Joe Biden Should Debate Sarah Palin

Many have commented on Joe Biden’s dilemma for Thursday’s debate. Assuming Sarah Palin reveals her unpreparedness – a safe assumption – Biden risks looking vicious if he attacks and patronizing if he doesn’t. This wouldn’t be a problem if Palin were at least minimally qualified, and it mightn’t be a problem if she were an unqualified man. But how to debate a likeable-but-unqualified woman in front of millions of undecided voters is a genuine dilemma.

The theory of risk communication says when you have a dilemma, share it. We picture Biden responding gently to the first two or three Palin howlers, then "going meta" in an appeal directly to the audience. Something like this:

"I want to do what actors call 'breaking the fourth wall' and step out of the debate for a minute. I want to share a dilemma with you who are watching.

"What do you do when you are cast as an equal against somebody who doesn't seem up to the job?

"Gov. Palin and I are both candidates for Vice President of the United States. I must treat her with the respect due to any major party candidate for high office. But it is hard to figure out the best way to show that respect.

"I have asked myself:

"Should I show respect by acting as if she knows what she's saying and belongs on this stage? That would mean responding with sharp, even biting, maybe even savage criticism each time she says something I think is not just misguided or unwise or empty ... but simply wrong, astoundingly uninformed.

"Or should I show respect by sympathizing because Gov. Palin is in a situation that is over her head? She unblinkingly let herself be thrust onto the national stage by Sen. McCain’s impetuous effort to 'change the game.' Should I treat her ignorance of national and international affairs gently, even at the risk of sounding condescending?

"During Gov. Palin’s first few comments, in my head I was thinking: 'Good God, that is so dangerously ignorant! I should blast her out of the water.' But I didn’t, because I thought that would lack respect. Instead, my effort to respond gently sounded condescending, even in my own ears.

"I really believe the most respectful thing is to respond to Gov. Palin the same way I would respond in a debate with Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama – respond with the assumption that Gov. Palin understands and means what she’s saying.

"My responses may sound like attacks. They will be – attacks on the actual content of Gov. Palin’s statements. They will not be personal attacks.

"I hope you will agree that this is the only kind of respect due to a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States – the respect of taking her words seriously – taking seriously the possibility that she could one day occupy the Oval Office."

And then he should attack.

Are we sure this is the right strategy? In a word, no. Certainly what we’ve drafted here is too long. And the last thing Biden wants to do is distract the post-debate buzz from his opponent’s unpreparedness to his unusual response to her unpreparedness. Maybe the dilemma-sharing needs to be leaked to the media a day or so beforehand instead. Somehow, Biden needs undecideds to understand that faced with an opponent who is out of her league, his only choices were "attack" and "patronize," and that "attack" was the more respectful of the two.

--Peter M. Sandman and Jody Lanard
The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website
h/t kos

John McCain's Theater Of The Absurd

John McCain put on his little show for us, and it didn't work. So, he continued on into the absurd.

Appropriating Wanker of the Day

by dday

I hope Atrios doesn't mind, but this qualifies for serious wanker status:

After declaring he’d return to Washington to help with the bailout negotiations immediately after last night’s debate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) never went to Capitol Hill today. In fact, McCain stayed largely holed up in his Arlington apartment, leaving only to go to his campaign headquarters just around the block, the New York Times reports:

Asked why Mr. McCain did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington to help with negotiations, [McCain adviser] Mr. Salter replied that “he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone."

So this diva gets the cameras assembled on Wednesday and gravely intones that he has to jet to Washington to save the economy. By Thursday he's blown up the negotiations, by Friday he's unsuspended the suspension, and she he shoots back to Washington to continue the swashbuckling, which consists of cleaning out the refrigerator and puttering around the house.

And then there's that coup de grace comment by Mark Salter, that "he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone." Um, then why couldn't he have done that on, you know, Wednesday?

I wonder what exciting reality stunts The John McCain Show will have in store for us next week? Maybe he'll eat a live scorpion to grab himself immunity!

UPDATE: I think we have our answer!

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

There is already some urgency to the wedding as Bristol, who is six months pregnant, may not want to walk down the aisle too close to her date of delivery. She turns 18 on October 18 . . .

. . . McCain is expected to have a front-row seat at Bristol’s wedding and to benefit from the outpouring of goodwill that it could bring. “What’s the downside?” a source inside the McCain campaign said. “It would be wonderful. I don’t know that there has ever been a pre-election wedding before.”

As usual in the McCain campaign, a good idea is described as an idea that's never been tried before.

Biden On McCain's Debate Performance

Obama Agrees As A Tactic

The right is trying to spin the debate. They want you to think Obama agrees with McCain on many things. Here are most of the instances of agreement Obama said. I have tried to include as much of Obama's answer as necessary to show that he uses agreement as a tactic.

Obama starts out with agreement usually, and then moves on to the disagreements. It disarms the other guy, and makes the point more, well, pointy. Obama has mad skills, that's all.

And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.

But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.

Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.

It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem.

But that's Senate inside baseball. But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...

And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.

And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means "without preconditions." It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say, "Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with you."

There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.

Again, it may not work, but if it doesn't work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.

And when we haven't done it, as in North Korea -- let me just take one more example -- in North Korea, we cut off talks. They're a member of the axis of evil. We can't deal with them.

And you know what happened? They went -- they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.

When we re-engaged -- because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this -- then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.

And -- and I just -- so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain's own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.

He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.

No, actually, I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues. Obviously, I disagree with this notion that somehow we did not forcefully object to Russians going into Georgia.

I immediately said that this was illegal and objectionable. And, absolutely, I wanted a cessation of the violence, because it put an enormous strain on Georgia, and that's why I was the first to say that we have to rebuild the Georgian economy and called for a billion dollars that has now gone in to help them rebuild.

Because part of Russia's intentions here was to weaken the economy to the point where President Saakashvili was so weakened that he might be replaced by somebody that Putin favored more.

Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street.

And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

I'm pretty sure the preceding counts as an ass-woopin'. They are in different leagues. One's a thinker, the other a bruiser. Why isn't this election opening up? Oh, it is. Obama up 4.3 in the RCP poll.

Here is Byron York's moronic piece claiming all the instances of agreement mean something they don't. What a tool.

williamyard On The Debate

From TNR:

I tend to be easily pleased, perhaps more so than Ms. Fairbanks. Then again, I prefer low-scoring pitchers' duels to ERA-busting slugfests. A universe is born, expands, and burns itself out in the time between the second and third pitch to the clean-up hitter with two outs and a guy on third in the bottom of the eighth of a scoreless game. It's easier to notice as we age and everything slows down.

I enjoyed the debate. I watched the first half-hour on CNN's website and listened to the rest on XM's POTUS channel as I drove home.

It was a "proud to be an American" moment. Both those guys could have been better, I suppose, but each of them individually--their contrasting stories and styles--and the two of them clinching and sparring as one unit reminded me how fortunate we are to have our system of governance.

I'm happy for Ole Miss. The debate for them must have been a cathartic act of public grace, like during Mass on Holy Thursday when we line up to wash each others' feet, kneeling then seated, giving then receiving.

Both men wore neckties. I hate neckties, and will wear one only under duress. But in this case it's a job interview, so they had to dress up. Have you ever interviewed someone for a job? What an honor it is to do so, to be asked to pass judgment on someone who wants to work for you. An unusual, almost archaic ritual of dominance and submission. In this case job applicants who will go so far as to debase themselves by wearing a necktie. Politicians are whores, and as y'all who know me a bit will confirm, I mean that in a good way. In this regard I wanted to reach out to McCain, the more flustered of the two, with his constant nervous chuckle, and say, there there, John, it's okay, we may not all agree with you but you can relax, we don't bite.

I particularly liked the fact that they both stayed true to themselves, to the classes to which they both appear iconic. Lehrer (amused, unflappable, terrific) kept trying to bait them into directly confronting each other. I think they are far less comfortable doing so than allowing their surrogates to do the dirty work. They are both friends of democracy; Obama at one point stopped himself from responding to one of McCain's criticisms by siding with Lehrer who had been trying to start a new line of questioning. In other words, Obama caught a couple jabs after the bell but played by the rules. I was reminded that patriots can be found in the cockpit of a fighter jet as well as behind the bar in a court of law.

That whole spat about talking to Iran without "preconditions" struck me as ironic, because I'd bet my next paycheck that the impetuous McCain would be much more likely to order Air Force One to be fired up in the middle of the night to fly off to secretly meet with somebody or other than would the circumspect, process-obsessed Obama. Then again, so much of this election has been about Bachelor Number One accusing Bachelor Number Two of being Bachelor Number One.

by williamyard

Debate Reaction

I thought it was painfully obvious McCain was out of his league. He wouldn't look at Obama, he resorted to talking points and attacks instead of thinking (maybe because thinking is hard for McCain).

McCain had a couple good minutes, but they were few and far between. Obama owned him. Here is a reaction I agree with:

"There will be those, like the oaf Chris Matthews, who will think that McCain's attitude shows him to be a leader. I think it shows that he was not raised well. His refusal to look at Obama throughout the debate, his dismissive tone of voice when continually speaking of Obama in the third person as though he were not there, his inability to say anything good about his opponent, all showed him to be a natural bully or someone who has been taught to be a bully."

Yeah. Mean Mr. McCain. It showed last night.

Then there is the crap about Obama agreeing with McCain. Look, that is a tactic. You start off with whatever you can agree with, then, when you're finished with that, you state your disagreements. It's called being thorough. Obama's grace is another reason McCain looked so old and mean.

It was a rout. McCain even called himself a maverick at one point because he had nothing of substance to say. Obama seemed to be all substance. Thoughts?

The Lies McCain Will Tell Tonight

Considering that McCain thinks he has already won the debate, here are some lies he told at the debate he won, not yet, or something.....
h/t democracyarsenal.org

10 Claims John McCain will make in tonight's debate
Posted by Max Bergmann

Here are ten claims to watch for from John McCain tonight:

Claim 1: McCain will say his foreign policy is different from that of George W. Bush. Reality: On the critical issues, ranging from advocating the invasion of Iraq only days after 9/11 to declaring premature victory in Afghanistan, to saber rattling on Iran and refusing to use tough diplomacy, John McCain's policies are in lock step with those of George W. Bush.

Claim 2: John McCain will tout his judgment, saying he hates war. Reality: John McCain has taken a dangerously aggressive approach to foreign policy advocating attacking six different countries in the last eight years. Moreover, McCain retains many of the same Neocon advisors who pushed for the war in Iraq in the first place.

Claim 3: McCain will say he has long been a critic of the war in Iraq. Reality: McCain was an early supporter of the Iraq War, linking Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. He supported the Rumsfeld strategy of going with a minimal number of troops and said the war would be "easy." He continued to argue for staying the course until 2006.

Claim 4: McCain will take credit for the "surge" and argue that the troop increase is responsible for the entire decline in violence and that as a result we have succeeded. Reality: Military leaders have acknowledged that there were numerous reasons for the reduction in violence including the Anbar Awakening and political engagement with Muqtada al-Sadr. In fact, McCain confused the sequence of events in Iraq arguing that the troop increase caused the Anbar Awakening, even though the Anbar Awakening came first. Moreover, General Petraeus has warned that it is too early to declare victory as John McCain and his allies are doing.

Claim 5: McCain will say he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reality: McCain has continued to make Iraq the number one priority and has not explained how he will keep large troop levels in Iraq while meeting the requirements in Afghanistan and elsewhere laid out by military commander and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He has shown little interest in Afghanistan saying we can just "muddle through" in 2003 and declaring victory in 2005. In fact, McCain had no policy on Afghanistan until July 15, 2008 and Afghanistan did not come up once in all of the major speeches during the Republican National Convention. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and progressives have been sounding the alarm for years.

Claim 6: McCain will say he will get Osama Bin Laden and go after Al Qaeda. Reality: John McCain was a strong early supporter of the Iraq war - a war that resulted in assets and focus being pulled away from the hunt for Bin Laden and Afghanistan. While Obama has supported going after high-value targets in al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan, McCain has criticized Obama for a position that has now become official U.S. policy.

Claim 7: McCain will cite his response to the crisis in Georgia as evidence of good judgment. Reality: McCain recklessly issued bellicose statements without waiting for all the facts, while Barack Obama, other world leaders, and even President Bush took a more measured approach. McCain then went on to claim that "we are all Georgians." In fact, McCain has had a dangerous policy towards Russia for some time, proposing to kick them out of the G8 - a policy that would preclude any cooperation on critical issues such as nonproliferation.

Claim 8: McCain will say that talking to Iran is weak and naive. Reality: There is a bipartisan consensus on the need to talk to Iran. Five secretaries of state including Henry Kissinger and Jim Baker all agreed recently that we have to talk to them directly. Obama's plan calls for tough direct diplomacy in combination with sanctions and other pressures. McCain's plan of refusing to talk is the same policy that George Bush pursued until very recently - a policy that has failed and that if continued will one day force the U.S. to make a no-win decision between attacking Iran or allowing it to attain a nuclear weapons capability.

Claim 9: McCain will say he can work effectively with our allies. Reality: John McCain has a long history of belligerence and heated rhetoric towards our allies. In the run up to the Iraq War he called France and Germany "vacuous and posturing" and referred to them as our "adversaries." Recently he said he might not meet with Spain's Prime Minister and on top of that he is quite unpopular internationally.

Claim 10: McCain will say he will cut wasteful defense spending. Reality: McCain has been all over the map on defense spending. His plan to add about 200,000 ground troops to the military would cost $25 billion a year. Meanwhile, in his budget plan released in July he promised to cut $160 billion from the budget by opposing the Future Combat System, yet he now criticizes Obama's promise to cut spending on that same program. See the data after the jump.

GENERAL FOREIGN POLICY

Claim 1: McCain will say his foreign policy is different from that of George W. Bush. Reality: On the critical issues from advocating the invasion of Iraq only days after 9/11 to declaring premature victory in Afghanistan to saber rattling on Iran and refusing to use tough diplomacy John McCain's policies are in lock step with those of George W. Bush. •

After 9/11, John McCain advocated attacking Iraq, Iran, or Syria instead of staying focused on the real threat in Afghanistan. "That's where the tough part of this whole scenario is going to begin. And that is that, after the Taliban are overthrown -- which I believe they will be -- I have very little doubt in my mind -- after bin Laden is either taken prisoner or killed and his network is destroyed, then what's next? Obviously, Iraq is still bent on -- Saddam Hussein is still bent on developing weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, the Iranians are still supporting terrorist organizations, as are the Syrians. That's where the tough choices and decisions are going to be made." [MSNBC, Hardball, 10/3/01]

• Like George Bush McCain completely misjudged the difficulties of invading Iraq, saying that the war would be "easy." McCain said, "I believe that the success [in Iraq] will be fairly easy." McCain also said, "I believe that the United States military capabilities are such that we can win a victory in a relatively short time... I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." In January 2003, McCain again predicted the same about invading Iraq, saying, "we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." In March 2003, McCain repeatedly said that US troops would be welcomed as liberators. Chris Matthews asked McCain, "Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" McCain answered: "Absolutely. Absolutely." Two weeks later, McCain said: "There's no doubt in my mind that once these people [loyalists to Saddam] are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators," McCain said. [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/12/03; 3/24/03; CNN, "Larry King Live," 9/24/2002; CNN, 9/29/02; CNN.com, 1/22/2003]

• McCain has consistently failed to accurately assess the situation in Afghanistan, calling the war in 2005 a "remarkable success" and said that "nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America." On CNN McCain said, "[C]ould I add, it was in Afghanistan, as well, there were many people who predicted that Afghanistan would not be a success. So far, it's a remarkable success." On Fox, McCain said, "Think we should have had a larger peacekeeping force. But nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America and nobody is running terrorist training camps to orchestrate attacks on the United States of America." [CNN, 3/2/05. Fox News, "Hannity & Colmes," 4/10/03]

Claim 2: John McCain will tout his judgment saying he hates war.
Reality: John McCain has taken a dangerously aggressive approach to foreign policy advocating attacking six different countries in the last eight years. Moreover, McCain retains many of the same Neocon advisors who pushed for the war in Iraq in the first place.

• In 2000 McCain called for overthrowing the regimes of Iraq, North Korea and Libya - In 2000 Republican primary campaign McCain argued that the United States should overthrow Iraq, North Korea and Libya. "McCain called Tuesday for the overthrow of Iraq, Libya and North Korea if they continue to develop weapons of mass destruction. "I'd institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.'" [Agence France Presse, 2/16/2000]

• Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks McCain advocated going after Syria and Iran. "After bin Laden is either taken prisoner or killed and his network is destroyed, then what's next? Obviously, Iraq is still bent on -- Saddam Hussein is still bent on developing weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, the Iranians are still supporting terrorist organizations, as are the Syrians. That's where the tough choices and decisions are going to be made." [MSNBC, Hardball, 10/3/01]

• After 9/11, McCain supported invading a number of countries. During an appearance on CNN's "Newsnight with Aaron Brown," John McCain said, "once we take care of the problem in Afghanistan and eradicate al Qaeda, and either kill or capture bin Laden, then we have to move to the next country." [CNN, "Newsnight with Aaron Brown," 11/23/01]

• McCain's extreme foreign policy views have made him the Neocons' candidate the past decade. In the 2000 campaign, McCain argued that the United States should overthrow Iraq, North Korea and Libya in a policy he called "rogue state rollback." Neoconservatives have had a prominent role in the McCain campaign. "Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives -- including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser -- to develop the senator's foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign." Robert Kagan, one of the most prominent neoconservatives, also wrote McCain's speech at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. [Agence France Presse, 2/16/2000. NY Times, 8/16/08. WSJ, 3/6/08. Wonk Room, 3/17/08. NY Times, 4/10/08]

IRAQ

Claim 3: McCain will say he has long been a critic of the war in Iraq. Reality: McCain was an early supporter of the Iraq War linking Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. He supported the Rumsfeld strategy of going with a minimal number of troops and said the war would be "easy." He continued to argue for staying the course until 2006.

• McCain fully endorsed the Bush-Rumsfeld plan for invading Iraq with few troops. On Face the Nation in 2002 McCain said, "I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past... I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." McCain, like Rumsfeld, thought air power would make up for fewer troops and like Rumsfeld, he never thought about the aftermath. McCain said on Larry King in 2002, "Our technology, particularly air-to-ground technology is vastly improved. I don't think you're going to have to see the scale of numbers of troops that we saw, nor the length of the buildup, obviously, that we had back in 1991." He said later on Hardball, "I believe that the kind of technology and the kind of military that we have today doesn't require massive numbers of troops. You might have noticed the conflict in Afghanistan, we had a few soldiers on the ground and used very incredibly accurate air power." McCain later predicted in late 2002 McCain said that "We're not going get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad." [CBS, Face the Nation, 9/15/02. CNN, Larry King Live, 12/09/02. MSNBC, Hardball, 10/16/02. CNN, Late Edition, 9/29/02]

• McCain was one of the most fervent war supporters and supported the President's approach throughout the course of the war. McCain was a cheerleader for invading Iraq, said "I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." He hyped the threat of Iraq saying Saddam Hussein is a "threat to civilization." He also said that failing to remove Saddam from power would "make the violent century just passed seem an era of remarkable tranquility in comparison." In the midst of looting following the invasion McCain praised Rumsfeld, saying "I'm a great admirer of Rumsfeld." He added "I think the president is blessed to have two extremely talented people (Powell and Rumsfeld), experienced people, working for him, and others, but particularly those two." [CNN Late Edition, 9/29/02. Washington Times, 2/14/03. MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]

• McCain said Bin Laden and Saddam connected because they share "common cause." "But what I think it's ample evidence of is that bin Laden will do anything he could to harm the United States of America, and he has common cause with Saddam Hussein who will do anything he can to harm the United States of America. And the two of them together can make a very potent recipe." [NBC Today Show, 2/13/03]

• McCain said mistakes were made but favored continuing the President's failed strategy saying that we need to "stay the course" with the President's Iraq strategy in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. McCain was a forceful advocate of continuing the President's approach in Iraq. Throughout 2004, 2005, and 2006 McCain consistently said we should "stay the course" in Iraq. In 2005 on ABC McCain said "some serious mistakes were made, but...I think we've got to stay the course here." In 2006 McCain said on CBS Bush had "laid out recently a pretty cogent argument why we must, quote - I hate to use the phrase - stay the course'[in Iraq.]" [NPR, 4/28/04. ABC News, 10/24/04. Fox, 8/14/05; ABC News, 9/25/05; CBS News, 6/29/05; The Hill, 12/8/05. MSNBC, 6/8/06. CBS News, 9/24/06]

Claim 4: McCain will take credit for the "surge" and argue that the troop increase is responsible for the entire decline in violence and that as a result we have succeeded. Reality: Military leaders have acknowledged that there were numerous reasons for the reduction in violence including a willingness to talk to our enemies though the Anbar Awakening and the ceasefire with Muqtada al-Sadr. In fact, McCain confused the sequence of events in Iraq arguing that the troop increase caused the Anbar Awakening, even though the Anbar Awakening came first. Moreover, General Petraeus has warned that it is too early to declare victory as John McCain and his allies are doing and that political progress is still slow in coming.

• A number of factors caused the reduced levels of violence in Iraq, including a willingness to talk to our enemies in the Sunni insurgency, and the Shi'a cleric Muqtada Al Sadr. Levels of violence in Iraq have fallen because of four factors: 1) the increased American military presence and new counterinsurgency tactics; 2) an alliance among a number of Sunni tribal groups against Al Qaeda in Iraq; 3) the segregation of the population along sectarian lines, thanks to massive ethnic cleansing; and 4) a cease fire by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. [Washington Post, 9/8/08]

• McCain confused the history of the surge. McCain misstated the history of the surge in an interview with Katie Couric. McCain said, "Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history." In reality, the Anbar Awakening preceded the surge. [CBS, 7/22/08]

• The Anbar Awakening, which began well before the President's announcement of the "surge" in January 2007, was crucial to the decline in violence. The Obama campaign was quick to note that the Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006, several months before President Bush even announced the troop escalation strategy, which became known as the surge. (No less an authority than Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress this spring that the Awakening "started before the surge, but then was very much enabled by the surge.") Furthermore, progressives noted that the sheik who helped form the Awakening, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, was assassinated in September 2007, after the troop escalation began. [NY Times, 7/24/08]

• General Petraeus himself has pointed out that the situation is more complicated than how John McCain and his allies portray it. "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan." [BBC News, 9/11/08]

AFGHANISTAN / PAKISTAN

Claim 5: McCain will say he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reality: McCain has continued to make Iraq the number one priority and has not explained how he will keep large troop levels in Iraq while meeting the requirements in Afghanistan and elsewhere laid out by military commander and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He has shown little interest in Afghanistan saying we can just "muddle through" in 2003 and declaring victory in 2005. In fact, McCain had no policy on Afghanistan until July 15, 2008 and Afghanistan did not come up once in all of the major speeches during the Republican National Convention. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and progressives have been sounding the alarm for years.

• McCain has not said where these troops will come from and his focus continues to be on Iraq. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, noted that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to help control an increasingly active insurgency but, due to the war in Iraq, insufficient forces are available for such action. "I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen said. "Afghanistan remains an economy of force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there. We have the ability in almost every single case to win from the combat standpoint, but we don't have enough troops there to hold. That is key to the future of being able to succeed in Afghanistan." Despite this, McCain has called for a long-term commitment to Iraq that would not allow us to have the necessary troops for Afghanistan. [Washington Post 7/2/08. NY Times, 7/02/08]

• McCain has shown little interest in Afghanistan compared to Iraq, believing we can "muddle" through in Afghanistan. After a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington D.C., McCain was asked about the deteriorating scenario in Afghanistan. He said, "There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that -- in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan." [McCain Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, 11/5/03]

• Afghanistan was completely ignored at the Republican National Convention, despite gravely deteriorating situation. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in a harrowing assessment for West Point, said that Afghanistan "is in misery," yet John McCain and his fellow conservative Republicans offered nothing to address this spiraling crisis. Afghanistan went unmentioned in all the major Republican convention addresses, a glaring absence that echoes the Bush Administration's neglectful policies toward the country, and the broader region. [General Barry McCaffrey, 7/30/08. President George W. Bush, 9/02/08. Senator Fred Thompson, 9/02/08. Senator Joseph Lieberman, 9/02/08. Mitt Romney, 9/03/08. Mike Huckabee, 9/03/08. Rudy Giuliani, 9/03/08. Governor Sarah Palin, 9/03/08]

• Until July 15th 2008, McCain had no strategy for Afghanistan included in his national security policy platform. Until July 15, 2008, John McCain's website contained no articulated strategy for Afghanistan. There is still scant mention of a strategy, in either his national security policy section or his Iraq policy section. [John McCain.com, 7/15/08]

• Progressives have called for more troops and a greater focus on Afghanistan for years. After years of neglect, deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan are raising questions for President Bush and John McCain. Democrats have been there all along - and since 2002 have been making the case that Iraq is distracting us from the main fight against Al Qaeda. Senator Kerry made this argument a central part of his campaign in 2004 and Barack Obama has been very clear about the importance of Afghanistan since early in the primary campaign. [NSN, 7/15/08. Senator Barack Obama, 10/2/02. Senator Barack Obama, 8/01/07. Senator Biden, NY Times, 3/2/08, NY Times, 10/1/03. John Kerry, U.S. Presidential Debates, 9/30/04. Senator Reid, 7/12/07. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Larry King Live, 4/24/2008. Senator Jack Reed, 3/15/07. Senator Carl Levin, 3/4/2008]

Claim 6: McCain will say he will get Osama Bin Laden and go after Al Qaeda. Reality: John McCain was a strong early supporter of the Iraq war - a war that resulted in assets and focus being pulled away from the hunt for Bin Laden and Afghanistan. While Obama has supported going after high-value targets in al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan, McCain has criticized Obama for a position that has now become official U.S. policy.

• McCain was an early supporter of the war in Iraq calling for toppling Saddam Hussein only a month after 9/11. This strategy diverted crucial resources from focusing on Osama Bin Laden. The New York Times reports that, "the White House shifted its sights, beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq." According to current and former military and intelligence officials the war in Iraq has consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the fight against al Qaeda. Intelligence officials report that by 2006 the Iraq war had drained away most of the C.I.A. officers with field experience in the Islamic world. "You had a very finite number" of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. "Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq." In fact, "when American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq." [New York Times, 6/30/08]

• Senator Obama advocates unilaterally striking terrorist targets in Pakistan. "They are plotting to strike again... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." [Washington Post, 8/02/07]

• McCain attacked Obama for his willingness to strike at Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, accused Obama of "confused" leadership and said he wanted to bomb "our ally" Pakistan. "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?" On Larry King, McCain was asked "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?" McCain responded "I'm not going to go there. And here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation." [MSNBC, 2/20/08. Larry King Live, 7/28/08]

• Obama's position has become official U.S. policy. President Bush recently approved orders allowing unilateral strikes against terrorist targets inside of Pakistan. "President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials. The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants' increasingly secure base in Pakistan's tribal areas." [NY Times, 9/10/08]

RUSSIA / GEORGIA

Claim 7: McCain will cite his response to the crisis in Georgia as evidence of good judgment. Reality: McCain recklessly issued bellicose statements without waiting for all the facts, while Barack Obama, other world leaders, and even President Bush took a more measured approach. McCain then went on to claim that "we are all Georgians." In fact, McCain has had a dangerous policy towards Russia for some time proposing to kick them out of the G8 - a policy that would preclude any cooperation on critical issues such as nonproliferation.

• McCain's response to Russia - without waiting for the facts -- was reckless and dangerous, another example of how his foreign policy would be more "aggressive" than Bush. "McCain took a remarkably -- and uniquely -- more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia's pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia." McCain's statement "put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush's first term." He went on to state that "I know I speak for every American when I say to him today, we are all Georgians." [Politico, 8/10/08. CBS, 8/12/08]

• McCain has attacked Obama for not being aggressive in his response, yet Obama's initial response was in line with almost all world leaders, including George Bush. "While virtually every other world leader called for calm in Georgia last Thursday morning, John McCain did something he's done many times over his career in public life: He condemned Russia...though neither he nor any other leader has suggested that the West has any real way to blunt Moscow's ultimate intentions. He's also faced the accusation that his encouragement of Georgia's dramatic defiance of Russia helped trigger the crisis." [Politico, 8/13/08]

• The conflict was more complicated than how McCain portrayed it. "According to the Republican presidential candidate, 'today we are all Georgians.' Actually, the events of the past week in Georgia have little in common with either Hitler's dismemberment of Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II or Soviet policies in Eastern Europe. They are better understood against the backdrop of the complicated ethnic politics of the Caucasus, a part of the world where historical grudges run deep and oppressed can become oppressors in the bat of an eye... When it comes to apportioning blame for the latest flare-up in the Caucasus, there's plenty to go around. The Russians were clearly itching for a fight, but the behavior of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili has been erratic and provocative. The United States may have stoked the conflict by encouraging Saakashvili to believe that he enjoyed American protection, when the West's ability to impose its will in this part of the world is actually quite limited." [Washington Post, 8/17/08]

• McCain has on numerous occasions called for kicking Russia out of the G-8 - an idea that would almost certainly lead to a new Cold War and preclude any cooperation on key non-proliferation issues. In a Foreign Affairs article published late last year, McCain advocated kicking Russia out of the G-8: "Today, we see in Russia diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, efforts to bully democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts to manipulate Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas. We need a new Western approach to this revanchist Russia. We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia." McCain repeated this suggestion in his Los Angeles World Foreign Affairs Council speech that the G-8 should "include India and Brazil, but exclude Russia." [Foreign Affairs, 11-12/07. McCain, 3/26/08]

IRAN

Claim 8: McCain will say that talking to Iran is weak and naive. Reality: There is a bipartisan consensus on the need to talk to Iran. Five secretaries of state including Henry Kissinger and Jim Baker all agreed recently that we have to talk to them directly. Obama's plan calls for tough direct diplomacy in combination with sanctions and other pressures. McCain's plan of refusing to talk is the same policy that George Bush pursued until very recently - a policy that has failed and that if continued will one day force the U.S. to make a no-win decision between attacking Iran or allowing it to attain a nuclear weapons capability.

• Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher all agree we need direct talks with Iran without pre-conditions. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, not only indicated that he "was in favor of negotiating with Iran," but said that such negotiations should occur "without conditions," and should begin at a high level." Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright advised that "You need to engage with countries you have problems with," and said "I believe we need to engage with Iran." Colin Powell, Secretary of State under George W. Bush echoed the need for negotiations stating: "Let's get together and talk about nuclear weapons." [AP, 9/15/08. ABC News, 9/15/08. Reuters, 9/16/08]

• The Bipartisan Iraq Study Group believes the US should have direct talks with Iran. "Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available." [Iraq Study Group, 12/06]

• Even the Bush administration is moving toward Senator Obama's strategy of diplomatic engagement with Iran. The Bush Administration is beginning to embrace a number of foreign policy positions favored by Senator Obama. "On a range of major foreign policy issues over the past year, Bush has pursued strategies and actions very much along the lines of what Sen. Obama has advocated during his presidential race..." "On the diplomatic front, Obama has made a point of advocating dialogue with Iran" and though he has been vilified by conservatives for it, "in July, Bush sent a high-level U.S. emissary to attend nuclear talks with Iran..." In June, the Washington Post reported that "Senior officials at the State Department and beyond are mulling a proposal to open an interest section in Tehran, similar to the one the United States has operated in Havana since 1977." [Washington Post, 9/15/08. Washington Post, 6/23/08]

• McCain's policy of refusing to engage Iran is a continuation of a failed Bush policy that even the current administration has begun to back pedal from. Senator McCain has consistently derided Barack Obama as naïve for his willingness to have tough direct diplomacy with Iran. McCain has instead called for more sanctions and the continuation of a policy that has not worked for the past five years while Iran has developed 4,000 centrifuges. He even put out an advertisement two weeks ago reaffirming this position and deriding Obama's position on Iran. [John McCain conference call, 5/15/08. JohnMcCain.com]

WORKING WITH ALLIES

Claim 9: McCain will say he can work effectively with our allies. Reality: John McCain has a long history of belligerence and heated rhetoric towards our allies. In the run up to the Iraq War he called France and Germany "vacuous and posturing" and referred to them as our "adversaries." Recently he said he might not meet with Spain's Prime Minister and on top of that he is quite unpopular internationally.

• McCain attacked our allies as "vacuous and posturing" for opposing war in Iraq. "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that "Iraq is the test" of both the U.N. and NATO. He charged that the alliance is failing the test because of the "flawed calculations" and "vacuous posturing" of Germany and France. McCain and Rumsfeld both said that recent French and German foot-dragging over even discussing the possible deployment of NATO assets, such as Patriot anti-missile batteries, to Turkey also threatened to damage the alliance." [Washington Post, 2/9/03]

• John McCain engaged in the anti-French bashing of the far right because they opposed the invasion of the war. "The Lord said the poor will always be with us, and the French will be with us, too," said McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee. "This is part of a continuing French practice of throwing sand in the gears of the Atlantic alliance. But now they're playing a dangerous game, and coming close to rendering themselves irrelevant." A few days later he even said that, "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) likened France to an aging '40s starlet "still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it." [NY Times, 2/14/03. NY Daily News, 2/17/03]

• McCain attacked Germany for opposing the war - saying they lacked "political courage." McCain said that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder "looks little like the ally that anchored our presence in Europe throughout the Cold War...A German Rip Van Winkle from the 1960s would not understand the lack of political courage and cooperation with its allies on the question of Iraq exhibited in Berlin today." [Washington Times, 2/14/03]

• McCain is very unpopular around the world, and surveys have shown that the majority of the international community is rooting for him to lose. A recent BBC study found that of all the countries polled, none hope for a McCain presidency. In fact, in the case of a McCain administration, 36% of those polled thought that American relations with the world would stay the same, while a full 16% thought relations would further deteriorate.

• John McCain refused to say whether he would invite Spain's Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to the White House. The interview - conducted in English and translated into Spanish - was with the Florida affiliate of Spain's Union Radio. In the interview McCain appeared to have no idea who Prime Minister Zapatero was, apparently assuming he was a Latin American leader who might or might not be a friend of the United States. This confusion occurred despite the reporter explicitly saying "I'm talking about Spain." Ironically, just before McCain was asked about Prime Minister Zapatero, he asserted "I know the issues, I know the leaders." McCain's confusion puts that statement in serious doubt. Spain is an important NATO ally, plays an extremely influential role in Latin America, was brutally attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists in 2004, has nearly 1000 troops in Afghanistan, has lost more than 20 soldiers in Afghanistan, and has the eighth largest economy in the world. Senator McCain has campaigned for President on his foreign policy experience. Such confusion over the leader of a very important ally raises serious doubts about John McCain's foreign policy competence. [Huffington Post, 9/18/08. Interview with Condoleezza Rice, 6/01/07. Radio Caracol Miami, 9/17/08]

DEFENSE SPENDING

Claim 10: McCain will say he will cut wasteful defense spending. Reality: McCain has been all over the map on defense spending. His plan to add about 200,000 ground troops to the military would cost $25 billion a year. Meanwhile, in his budget plan released in July he promised to cut $160 billion from the budget by opposing the Future Combat System, yet he now criticizes Obama's promise to cut spending on that same program.

• McCain has made grandiose promises on defense that are not grounded in reality and represent the exact opposite of the fiscal reform that he will supposedly bring to the White House. John McCain has pledged to expand the ground forces by about 200,000 over current levels. He also says he will modernize the armed forces by "procuring advanced weapons systems." Yet at the same time, McCain has pledged to control defense spending. This doesn't add up. The CBO estimates that increasing the ground forces to the current goal of about 750,000 will cost about $110 billion over seven years; this is roughly $15 billion per year. Using the same projections, increasing the size of the ground forces by an additional 150,000 over this same period would cost an additional $175 billion or $25 billion per year. The costs would likely be much higher as McCain is proposing a 25 percent increase in the size of the ground forces and attracting that many volunteers will require significant funding. [Foreign Affairs, 11-12/08. John McCain.com 9/10/08. CBO, 4/16/07]

• John McCain's own budget plan - the one that he claims will reform Washington - opposes the Future Combat System and claims he would cut $160 billion in spending. McCain's plan submitted in July 2008 to the Washington Post specifically claims that balancing the budget "requires slowing outlay growth to 2.4 percent. The roughly $470 billion dollars (by 2013) in slower spending growth come from reduced deployments abroad ($150 billion; consistent with success in Iraq/Afghanistan that permits deployments to be cut by half -- hopefully more), slower discretionary spending in non-defense and Pentagon procurements ($160 billion; there are lots of procurements -- airborne laser, Globemaster, Future Combat System -- that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed)." And Senator McCain has long been an opponent of the Future Combat System. [Washington Post, 7/14/08. The Hill, 4/05/05]

• John McCain blasted Barack Obama for opposing Future Combat System - but McCain also opposed it. Barack Obama stated clearly that he would "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," by "slowing the development of Future Combat Systems," while also working separately to "increase the size of our military," so the present strain on the armed forces would diminish. McCain misrepresented these separate positions, calling Obama a flip-flopper before audiences in Missouri "Of course, now he wants to increase it," McCain told an audience in Lee's Summit, Missouri on Monday. "But during the primary he told a liberal advocacy group that he'd cut defense spending by tens of billions of dollars.'" [CNN, 9/08/08]