I have no idea whether anyone ever hits the links in the left nav bar to visit those I consider to be (usually) politically sane. Since I’ve got more thoughts in my head this afternoon than time, let’s visit some of those level-headed folks.
First, John Cole at Balloon Juice writes a post that makes me think he’s got eavesdropping bugs planted in Polimom’s house — because Dear Husband and I had exactly this conversation last night.
For the record: DH agrees 100% with John’s first paragraph…
My ideal system would be immediate disclosure- let the money flow, so long as people know where it is coming from. I was never a supporter of McCain-Feingold, and unlike the Republicans, apparently, I still am not.
…and Polimom agrees just as fully with the third.
[L]iberal media bias may be the biggest fraud the right-wing has ever gotten away with. It is absurd.
If you disagree with John Cole’s post after reading it, then I hope you can help me understand why the media is beside themselves with rage at Obama on public financing, but there’s been nary a mention of McCain’s shenanigans?
Then there’s Amba, with some remarks about the suggestion of Obama as the “first woman president”:
In the animal world, macho display is often less a prelude to a fight than a way of avoiding a fight. Another way of avoiding future fights — a frequent trope in classic Westerns, actually — is to win the first one with such devastating decisiveness that no one mistakes your quiet confidence for anything less ever again. Obama needs to convince us he is capable of that.
Read her whole post — it’s very good. I’ll just add here that at the moment, Adorable Child is off learning to shoot at the target range, following her amazing demonstration of fishing prowess last night. There’s probably a message there somewhere…
Finally, here’s Marc at Black Shards, who takes up the “Obama’s playing the race card” standard:
Nothing I’ve seen implicates John McCain or the Republican party in racially oriented politics.
Hmmm… Maybe the Tennessee GOP has declared it’s independence from the party and I missed a memo? You bet there’ll be “btw, he’s black” reminders. I don’t think, though, that John McCain personally will play from that deck. (OTOH, I really didn’t expect it from the Clintons either.)
But buried in Marc’s post is a line that struck me pretty forcibly. He wrote:
Obama would pull us out of Iraq before the job is done, endangering Iraqi lives and the tenuous progress made there as a result.
I’ve written before that the Democrats seem to be suffering from some kind of denial syndrome about the progress in Iraq, but I don’t think this odd “stuck in 2005” mindset is unique to the Dems.
Regardless of how his position on Iraq has been presented to the public, I fully expect John McCain to begin the disengagement and withdrawal process if he becomes president. Not only that, but I think either a McCain or an Obama presidency will move along similar timelines — not because either of them has obfuscated or pandered (necessarily), but because the changing circumstances in Iraq have negated the more extreme readings of their positions.
What do you think?
I have a semi-answer to your question about bias here.
BTW, I am getting an error when I try to get the trackback uri.
“Regardless of how his position on Iraq has been presented to the public, I fully expect John McCain to begin the disengagement and withdrawal process if he becomes president. Not only that, but I think either a McCain or an Obama presidency will move along similar timelines …”
Agreed. While there may be great differences between the two from a historical perspective on their approach to Iraq, there is a lot less than meets the ey e in terms of the practical reality in Iraq going forward. Both continue to posture to their respective bases, creating the illusion of a big difference.
The reality is that we have to significantly reduce our military posture in Iraq over the next two years. We cannot afford the status quo as a country, and the military services are overstressed and will break down unless our footprint is reduced and we have some time to rebuild. I’m guessing that our military presence in Iraq is down 65% plus or minus 15% within two years regardless of who is elected president. The sum total of the differences between them is within that 15%. It is even feasible that McCain will be able to reduce our presence in Iraq at a faster pace than Obama.
Dr. Taylor, thank you for your thoughtful post about perceived media bias, and whether / how it applies to the radically different handling of McCain and Obama on campaign financing. Given the attention span of the American public these days, I can see why the major media would prefer to pounce on the easily-explained, rather than address the question with balance.
mw — I agree that feasibly, McCain could reduce our presence in Iraq more rapidly than Obama. And I think that both candidates are going to make their “bases” very unhappy. IMHO, that’s a good thing.
Polimom says
I just can’t imagine what brings you to this conclusion. McCain has said absolutely nothing to support it. In fact, just the opposite.
As for tenuous progress in Iraq. “We” can’t make it. It’s up to them. And despite the improved security situation, to claim that real progress has been made in the areas we have pointed to as requirements for success is to move the goal posts out of Reliant stadium and all the way to the Minute Maid Field parking lot.
And don’t even get me started on the cost financially to the treasury.
I’ve long said, the Iraq war won’t end until China grows tired of paying for it.
Harvard University released a study on media bias six mos. and found that the media is slanted to the left. I don’t think its an organized campaign unlike others. I’m of the opinion that the personality types best suited for that type of career tend to lean to the left.
Hi Davebo —
If you don’t think there’s been substantial progress in Iraq the last year +, then my statement would be confounding indeed. But that’s where the thought is rooted for me… because I agree with you (and mw) about the costs of this war. Even the most ardent and deluded neocon would no doubt agree that this is not sustainable.
Interestingly, I cam across this same thought elsewhere today from Joe Klein at Time (link). He’s caught up in another argument in that link, but the point I made is in there too.
Dyre — interesting theory! Could very well be. Certainly there are careers that attract various personality (and political) types. Wonder if anybody’s studied that?