Monday, April 28, 2008

Joe Knollenberg endorsed John McCain for President and therefore...

he has endorsed 100, maybe 10,000 more years of occupation in Iraq. Using the same logic, guilt by association, that was used in tying Barack Obama to Reverend Wright, Joe Knollenberg has endorsed McCain's policies. Here's one that the American people do not endorse, at least a majority of Americans.

Over 60% of America believes it was a bad idea to invade them even after the Petraeus Propaganda Show. In the latestes ABC/WaPo poll 56% of Americans believe we should get out of Iraq even after the media blitz on “the surge.”

Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there? 56% withdraw 41& Keep forces in

There’s no spin here. Their efforts to control the message has not worked. Vote McCain and you’ll get more of the same. It’s that simple.

President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years…Maybe 100. That would be fine with me. President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq 50 years…Maybe 100. If all he offers is more of the same….is John McCain the right choice for America’s future?


Zark-Vader said...

Speak about the pot calling the kettle names ... Bruce, you are the master of guilt by association and you now lay the claim that others use the technique?

I'm not about to say that the Reverend Wright thing is 100% fair to O'Bama - but 1) it's a story fanned by the Hillary campaign machine 2) there is some truth to the point that Wright is an extremist (no different than the left pointing out "extremist right-wing religious" preachers that conservatives may attend church in -- O'Bama is attending church in an extremist left-wing anti-American setting), although I don't believe the Wright issue will or should be the defining issue in either the primary or general.

There's no question that McCain gaffed in the 100 year quote - and no question O'Bama's waffling on Wright is stubborn - but neither of them are defined by that laser-like spotlight on their nose hairs. The larger picture of both men is far different, and you, as usual, have no perspective on it.

And as to Joe - endorsing someone doesn't mean wholesale acceptance of their policy views - and you know it. You can endorse someone and rebuke specific ideas they hold and be on reasonable philosophical justification ground. The problem for O'Bama is that he hasn't clearly rebuked Wright's offensive ideas (and there's a difference between having "offensive" views and merely disagreeing on difficult, complex policy matters, which is what your disagreement on the war is -- you may passionately believe your view is right, but McCain's view isn't necessarily ill-motivated -- Wright's statements are, on their face, ill-motivated, prejudicial (I dare say racist, because they paint whole groups of people with a broad brush), and offensive because they attribute ill-motivation to America (which is an entity incapable of motivation without individuals working within it) and Americans. I do not fundamentally believe Americans are bad people with a desire to do the types of bad things Wright asserts. Are we an imperfect people? Yes. Like everyone else, but arguably a shining example to the world that openness, transparency, and (relative) freedom from government intrusion brings out the best in human individuals. Is there imperfection even in that? Sure. But on the whole, Americans have stood up and done the right thing for others in the world for honorable reasons. Americans died in World War II for a noble cause. Americans fought brothers and sisters (mostly Republicans fighting Democrats, by the way!!!) in the Civil War to form a more perfect union and eradicate slavery and start the process of racial healing - a process that we have made serious progress on but still have a ways to go. Americans bravely fought monarchist tyranny in the 1770s and 80s, and despite forming an initially imperfect union, set in writing the PRINCIPLES of EQUALITY (look at the first state Constitutions, like Massachusettes, banning slavery and recognizing the full equality of human beings), checks & balances, open and transparent government, (near) ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF SPEECH and general freedom of governmental intrusion, and republican democracy. These principles were undergirded not by a notion that they are natural rights, transcending government and even man (whether or not you believe in god you can believe in some natural order).

Wright's diatribes fly in the face of all that. I believe that most minorities believe in the hope of America, and to the extent that O'Bama taps into that hope he taps into a universal hope that has earned him some support among other demographics. But he has yet to be specific about HOW we realize the hope - and until he does that, he's susceptible people speculating about the how based on his past associations. It's time for O'Bama to get specific.

Bruce Fealk said...

The problem for Joe, Chetly, is that he has backed the war and its funding all along. Therefore, I believe he does believe in the long term occupation of Iraq.

I even have video of him whole heartedly endorsing President Bush's policies, all of them, saying what a great President Bush has been.

Even though Joe has switched allegiances from Romney, since he dropped out, to McCain, Joe is still four square behind the war, even though he has made some vague assertions that he thinks eventually his patience will run out, it's unclear what his timetable for withdrawing his support for the war is and he doesn't even mention the war as an issue on his web site.

As to Obama, I think with the new statements Obama will have to get more specific and perhaps disassociate himself from Write all together in specific terms, since Wright seems to be enjoying his time in the spotlight way too much and I heard yesterday he's publishing a book.

However, McCain has his own preacher-gate in John Hagee, and I think Hagee is much more of an extremist than Wright and McCain's preacher-gate just isn't getting much coverage at the moment due to the intensity of the race on the Democratic side.

I think the DNC ad against McCain is perfectly legitimate and valid, given McCain's statements. There is a story today on Huffington Post that there are quotes no uncovered that McCain has done another flip-flop on the long term occupation of Iraq, where now he calls for a 100 year presence, he once called for getting all troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

MIKE said...

Article 6 of the Constitution basically says there will not be a "litmus" test of religion for elections. All this parcing and splitting hairs about connection to this clergy or that clergy just drives me up the wall. We are trying to select the next President of the United States, not a Pope! McCain's position on the Iraq debackle is legitimate - the issue of pastors is not. Only the media pays attention to these trivial things. Way past time to debate the REAL issues facing America.