Condoleezza throws her hat in the ring:
But I just want to emphasize again, Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used, that will make it – that – when it wishes to deliver a message, and that’s its military power. That’s not the way to deal in the 21st century.
You don’t say.
(HT: Think Progress)
But one of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can’t disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America’s national interest. Now, it’s time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.
Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a Red America or a Blue America—you served the United States of America.So let’s have a serious debate, and let’s debate our disagreements on the merits of policy—not personal attacks. And no matter how heated it gets or what kind of campaign he chooses to run, I will honor Senator McCain’s service, just like I honor the service of every veteran in this room, and every American who has worn the uniform of the United States.
(HT: TMP)
From last night’s Saddleback forum:
““Some of the richest people I’ve ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich is — should be defined by a home, a good job and education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich.”
McCain preaches a little moral lesson about how money can’t buy happiness, but then says that he wants everyone to be rich, just like he is. It’s interesting that such a confused string of sentences garnered such a loud applause from room full of evangelicals.
This was a fascinating event to watch on TV. For me, the most illuminating question Warren posed was on the nature of Evil in the world. Obama answered by saying that we should confront the evil in the world, but that it can only be God who can completely eliminate evil. And he added that in confronting the evil of the world, we must do so with humility. McCain, on the other hand, without hesitation said we should defeat evil. He claimed that he would “follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell” if need be. In addition to that, he claimed that he knows how to find Bin Laden. Finally, he said that he had no doubt that with the US military, he could completely rid the world of evil. In my view, Obama’s response was much more responsible and was rooted in reality, which is always a good thing right. On the other hand, based on his answer, a McCain presidency might make Abu Ghraib seem like the Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.
Sadly but not surprisingly, the crowd, while friendly to Obama, was really eating up McCain’s responses. The strangest moment, as Andrew Sullivan noted, what when the crowd gave it’s loudest applause for McCain’s call to begin off-shore drilling as soon as possible. It’s interesting that a room full of people who could afford the $500-$2,000 ticket price for this event are THAT concerned with the price of gas.
From my perpective, while Obama didn’t get the same kind of responses from the audience that McCain did, I think he did a fine job of allowing voters to familiarize themselves with him a bit more. He was much more conversational and personal with Warren while McCain used this event more as an opportunity for a religiously styled stump speech.
The hits keep on coming....
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st Century.”
(HT: Matthew Yglesias)
Over the past few weeks since I’ve been back from traveling I’ve been forcing myself to listen to a little conservative talk radio. As anyone who might read this blog on a regular basis will know that this comes as a bit of a stretch for me due to my liberal/progressive political tendencies. Now, for the record, I must admit that I generally dislike any kind of political talk radio, both conservative and liberal. I get a similar case of willies listening to Air America as I do listening to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
The most glaring problem with these kinds of commentators is that they inherently refuse to tell the whole story. The radio personality skillfully presents a partial truth and then dresses up that partial, incomplete truth as the whole truth. In doing so, they diligently assume the absolute worst of the person or group whom they oppose. It’s a worldview supported by the non-stop, crippling duality of us and them, good and evil, liberal and conservative, God and secular humanism. Never does anyone consider the perspective or circumstances of the other. And why should they? “Evil” people don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
This kind of approach is displayed in this clip is a perfect example of duality in it’s purest form:
Here we have the issue of two men, John Edwards and John McCain, who’ve admitted to having an affair. Both men committed unfortunate mistakes and both have lived with the consequences of their actions. But Hannity cannot bring himself to consider any kind of circumstances in Edwards’ case, but freely gives McCain a pass because of McCain’s circumstances. The point here isn’t to point out which man committed the bigger sin, but to consider that we are all fallible and that we all contend with circumstances that contribute to failures as well as failing to be personally responsible. In Hannity’s view, only the guy on his team can have the benefit of “extenuating circumstances.” When it comes to Edwards, because he is the “enemy”, the circumstances in his situation have no place in the debate because the “evildoers” don’t deserve any subtly or nuance.
And this isn’t to pick on Hannity. He’s simply one spoke in the very large wheel of propaganda in this country, coming from both the right and left. And sadly, this kind of punditry is big business and telling people what they want to hear will always keep ad revenue high and the pockets full.
I think this is precisely why Barack Obama has not surged ahead in the polls like many, including me, thought he would. He represents an attempt to transcend the dualistic political landscape that George Bush, Karl Rove, and now John McCain thrive on. We’ve been conditioned to expect leaders to have an either/or approach that makes their base happy while annoying their political counterparts. Obama doesn’t necessarily fit into the either/or worldview and that tends to make everyone unhappy. John McCain used to be this type of leader but has decided to adopt the Rovian world view where dualism reigns supreme.
“.....in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
Really? It’s fascinating the moral high ground that McCain and Bush seem to discover when other nations act as belligerently as we do.
(HT: Matthew Yglesias)
“Everybody start out living in a fragmented, broken, dualistic, brutalized state. The world is divided into subject versus object, self versus other, me in here versus the world out there. Once the world is broken in two, the world knows only pain, suffering, torment, terror. In the gap between subject and object lies the entire mystery of humankind.”
—Ken Wilber, Boomeritis
“The professed object of war generally is to preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace; but war never did and never will preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace, for it is a divine decree that all nations who take the sword will perish with the sword. War is no more adapted to preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace than midnight darkness is to produce noonday light.”
Here’s a laugh-out-loud moment in a story from CNN.com:
“President Bush said Monday that Russia’s actions “substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world” and “jeopardized its relations” with the United States and Europe.”
You mean to say that illegally invading a country can damage one’s standing in the world? Who would have guessed?
