Differences on many issues were clear in the debate tonight.
The three issues which stood out to me involved McCain’s plan to directly assist troubled mortgage holders, tax policy and Israel.
Question 13 on Israel was striking to me. If Israel was attacked, would the candidate commit troops to support Israel? McCain was clear that we would defend Israel. I am not sure what Obama would do based on his answer; he said he would not options off the table but he would also sit down with the Iranian president.
For readers who are keen on how the candidates stand toward Israel, I am interested in your reactions. I was surprised when Obama said this:
Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks — not just with our friends, but also with our enemies — to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don’t change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences. If you do change your behavior, then it is possible for you to re-join the community of nations. Now, it may not work. But one of the things we’ve learned is, is that when we take that approach, whether it’s in North Korea or in Iran, then we have a better chance at better outcomes.
In the context of the question of whether Israel could count on US support, I think this answer might raise concerns that an Obama administration would not be a ready ally in the face of aggression toward Israel.
Movie Fan,
While I agree with your descriptions of the candidates leadership style, I question your conclusion that Obama “demonstrates” a better leadership mentality.
My definition of demonstrating leadership is that someone has to have led for us to make that kind of judgement. I can find nothing in his record that shows that Obama has ever led on anything except his campaign.
He may very well be more inspiring than McBoring but when I follow someone into battle, and I am talking about any kind of confrontation not just military, I am more apt to follow someone who has demonstrated he will not falter when the going gets tough, will not leave me out in the cold because public opinion has shifted, and is willing to make compromises with the other side (when necessary) in order to accomplish the mission, that is the person I can feel confident in following. I do not see that in Senator Obama’s record, be it in the Senate or even in this campaign.
When it comes to leadership rhetoric Obama has it hands down. However, when we look past the words, and their delivery, we find a complete lack of substance. Initially I was drawn to Obama, from his 2004 speech (which was a great model of non-partisanship) up until the Democratic primary, but when I looked into his record and his background it all fell apart; where is the record of non-partisanship he spoke so eloquently of in 2004?
I have never been a big fan of McCain aside from my deep respect for the hell he went through for his country. But when comparing the substance of the records of these two men and on watching and listening closely to what they say while matching it against what they do and have done, I have decided there is no comparison. McBoring is the man I believe can lead this great nation. O’Blah Blah has just not shown me anything except that he is a great communicator.
PS
for those of you who are McCaniacs or Obamiacs please do not get offended by my play on the candidates names, it is not done to disrespect anyone.
The candidates have a major difference in their leadership styles: McCain tends to say, “Follow me because the other guy can’t get it done” while Obama says, “Follow me because I can get it done.” Ideally, the candidates should say, “Follow me because i will help you get it done” … in any case, of the two of them Obama demonstrates a better leadership mentality
Calling a nation whose cooperation we need in the war on terror evil is just a terrible idea and awful diplomacy. John McCain refused to call Russia an evil empire as well – and good for him. Let’s look at the transcript:
Well, in the event that McCain becomes President, I hope you all are right, and that I am wrong.
I fear President McCain will launch a preemptive war with Iran. His advisors, such as Randy Scheunnemann and Robert Kagan, are members of the same pro-war neoconservative groups that got us into this Iraq. I found his responses during debate as meandering and content-free as Obama’s were reassuring and focused.
Aside from that I find it outrageous to reward Republicans with another four years for what they have inflicted.
But I suppose we shall see. I was sorely disappointed four years ago. There are no guarantees that history will turn for the better.
It would seem that he wants to come down on both sides of an issue thereby giving himself more wiggle room.
David,
Yes, you hit the nail right on the head – he also wants to be all things to all people. He clearly lacks certitude and clarity on all the important issues and has from the beginning. The only thing he has said that made me take pause was when he defended Bristol Palin and told the press to back off and that children of candidates were off limits.
The real question, IMHO, from this exchange and several others is why didn’t Obama give a straight answer as McCain did. It would seem that he wants to come down on both sides of an issue thereby giving himself more wiggle room. He said we wouldn’t take military options off the table but the question was would we respond on our own or wait for approval from the UN.
Similarly, on the question of whether Russia was evil, he responded that their actions are certainly evil. This is like the saying “don’t hate the player, hate the game” as if the two are completely separate. In fact we judge people by their actions why would we not extend the same to countries run by people?
This is the same thing he has done about his “pal” Ayers. He has said he (Ayers) is “a guy who did some despicable things 40 years ago when I was 8 years old.” As if he is a different person now and Obama should not be judged harshly for associating with him. Unfortunately Ayers thinks his “despicable” actions were not. Nor does he rule out doing them again. Obama needs to lay this issue to rest by actually making a clear statement about the man not his actions.
There were a couple other times Obama tried to straddle the issue but I can’t think of them right now.
Another substantive statement from John McCain who has knowledge, conviction, and certitude about critical issues whereas Barak Obama is under the dilusion he can sit down with the Iranian president and talk reasonably about the survival of Israel. I can see the smirk on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s face now.
That is not always true
Jayhuck,
Like I said, it is difficult to understand unless one has knowledge.
That is not always true Ann – and this conflict has been going on for so long I wonder if anyone knows who attacked who first!
Jayhuck,
Unless you have knowledge of the situation, it is difficult to understand. Israelis do not attack unless they have been attacked.
Has anyone noticed how increasingly negative the McCain campaign has become? Desperation?
Ann,
Let’s not pretend that Israeli’s don’t have blood on their hands. They have done their fare share of killing of Palestinians as well. Neither side is guiltless in this terrible fight.
Nevermind. It was a lame joke.
Evan,
Oh, ok – I get it 🙂
Evan,
I am not disputing the ongoing differences between the Palestinians and Israelis. Just like anything else though, there are varying thoughts and beliefs between the two and that is rarely reported or sought out by others. I wanted to know the truth. Israelis are not afraid of their leaders and the Palestinians are.
Hamas won the 2006 elections by popular support.
Evan,
I do not believe this is accurate. It was an unspoken mandate.
Ann wrote:
Yes they are – especially when they are family members or preyed upon due to poverty and other vulnerabilities.
OK, but there is a discrepancy between people’s amiable attitudes to each other and their authorities’ policies. Hamas won the 2006 elections by popular support. Israel is a democracy and decisions are made by popularly elected parties forming the government. If people of both sides get along very well in the same neighbourhoods, then this should be reflected in the way they vote too and the policies their governments feel entitled to carry out in order to stay in power and win more popular support. Whose will is the political will reflected in the policies of displacement that you mentioned?
Ann,
Nevermind. It was a lame joke.
How about going to Iraq for a while? Or maybe to Afghanistan?
Evan,
Why?
People are not bullied into supporting radical politics
Evan,
Yes they are – especially when they are family members or preyed upon due to poverty and other vulnerabilities.
Ann said:
I know firsthand how this works in times of peace. But I thought life and politics in a warring area must be different, making people focus on very critical priorities, so that they come to support political positions which are more radical than their own thinking, given other conditions.
I guess good news for ordinary people is “bad news” for the media…
At the same time, I wouldn’t take everything that people would say at face value, because radical governments are the product of popular or parliamentary voting. People are not bullied into supporting radical politics, they do share some common objectives but may have different views on how to reach them.
You’re a brave one. How about going to Iraq for a while? Or maybe to Afghanistan? 🙂
Thanks for the reply.
Lynn David,
I have heard many stories as well – I went there to understand and came back with a very different and more accurate knowledge of the truth.
Israeli soldiers have physically taken out Israelis from settlements that were given back to the Palestinians. There were many tears amongst both the Palestinians and Israelis and the solders but they did it for peace. If you talk with the people you will hear them say they are brothers, not enemies. Yes, Israelis have bulldozed down areas to create buffer zones so their people would stop being killed by surprise attacks from the radical Palestinians. FYI – it is the Palestinians who do the carving and selling of olive wood, not the Israelis. You can go to any town, especially Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Jericho and see it as the way people earn a living.
No Anne, I’ve never been off of the continent (unless you count the Bahamas). I have spoken with Palestinians since I attended college in Texas. There have been some Catholic Palestinians visit my church (still consider it my church), whose livelihoods were destroyed when the Israelis bulldozed their olive trees. Some have taken to all they could, carving statuary and nativity scenes from the wood of their former olive groves.
Then there are the farmlands which have been appropriated by Israeli settlers. Or those cut off from their lands by Israeli security forces or the wall. People have not been allowed to go to their lands and plant or take care of them at the correct time because of issues the Israeli security force raises. Some people can see their fields from their villages but are forced to travel several miles to get to them because of arbitrary Israeli boundaries and checkpoints.
That’s what I can remember off the top of my head. I also have the same considered feelings for the former government of South Africa which displaced black farmers there. And China for displacing families who have been rooted to their lands for thousands of years in the Three Gorges area. So….
Evan,
Let me know if you would like more specific information and what that is and I will be happy to tell you.
Evan,
I have been to Israel four times and my observations and interactions with all the people there in the government, soldiers, and the citizens have been consistent. What we hear in the news is almost always for political purposes. Rarely do we hear about the Palestinian and Israeli farmers who call each other brothers and help each other’s families. We tend to only hear about the discord, which comes from a small group of radicals on both sides and is used for political purposes all around the world. I have been in danger several times there but have never been afraid 🙂
Ann,
It would be interesting to hear what you’ve seen in Israel. Does it confirm what we’ve seen in the news or one must go there first to fully understand foreign policy implications?
I know from personal experience the latter is true for countries in the Balkan region.
Lynn David,
Have you been to Israel and spoken to both Israeli and Palestinian citizens? I have and with all due respect, you are incorrect with the above statement.
Does “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” count as a policy statement?
j/k
But… Sullivan is so fair-minded! What’s wrong with an unsupported quote? (just kidding)
Fair enough. However, that is where the debate lies: whether to start a preemptive war with Iran, and how best to handle Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
One of McCain’s foreign policy advisors is Randy Scheunemann. He is a member of the neoconservative thinktank, Project for the New American Century, along with other neocon luminaries such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, and President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. In a segment for the PBS Newshour, he spoke on behalf of the McCain campaign regarding Iran policy.
minty – in absence of a statement of policy from McCain, that is an irresponsible statement. A link to Andrew Sullivan is hardly adequate documentation.
If Iran attacks Israel, the United States will go to war with Iran. Period. Regardless of who is in the White House.
Just as if North Korea attacks South Korea, the United States will go to war with North Korea. Period.
Where the candidates differ is on the question of a preemptive attack. To quote Andrew Sullivan:
It’s very important for people to realize that the McCain-Palin ticket is explicitly running on war against Iran. If McCain-Palin is elected, there will be war. If Obama-Biden is elected, there is a tiny chance there won’t be. In terms of the future, this is the critical issue to be decided.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-mccain-pali.html
You left Obama’s final two paragraphs off of your thought.
Put that in your “context of the question of whether Israel could count on US support” hat and eat it. Your whole premise then flutters away on the breeze.
To paraphrase McCain himself…. ‘you can’t just say that, you can’t say you’d invade [fight for] a country.’
Why should we fight for Israel? The last time (or earlier) we were in the area when a fight broke out, Israel attacked our intelligence gathering ship. Other than that, who in the region cannot Israel defend itself against? Palestine? Syria? Egypt? Iran? Our favorite democracy, Iraq, or favored monarchy, Saudi Arabia? I cannot think of one country with the hutzpah to think they might beat Israel, except the loonies in Iran. All of them? That fell apart with the United Arab Republic. Russia, you say? Why? Our ally, Turkey? Oh…. wait, our ally, Pakistan! They definitely have the bomb. So does Israel, if MAD works for us, let it work for Israel.
Frankly, I don’t want to fight for Israel. They’ve screwed over more Palestinian farmers (both Christian & Muslim) than you can shake a stick at, I sorta have more of an allegiance with those farmers.
So then why should Obama pledge American lives for Israel? One, Israel is not at all times in the right. Second, when we do so pledge, we lose credibility as a nation who would seek peace in the region and thus cannot negotiate and lobby for peace with that credibility (though attacking Iraq did a lot of that already). But by that yardstick McCain misspoke in a very major way.
As far as the economy goes McCain voiced a piece of a plan. At one point he said the only things that government should finance was defence spending and veteran’s affairs. Everything else was subject to being dumped as far as federal spending goes. That would include, medicare, social security, schools, highways, waterways, agriculture, our national forests and parks, anything to promote new energy sources, and anything else you can think of.
Anything except that precious military, which I guess he wants to use almost as much as GW Bush. GW had his father to show up, now it looks like McCain is all wired up to show up his ancestral admirals and everyone in his family who rose above his rank in the military.