Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on McCain and Huckabee; Iran and Bush.

1

there you go again Golob, making sense as usual.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 7, 2008 5:00 PM
2

This is both frightening and fairly convincing. My biggest problem with the McCain/Huckabee combination is McCain is OLD, old enough to die while in office, leaving Huckabee in control. That is not something I see anyone benefitting from.

Posted by Aislinn | February 7, 2008 5:02 PM
3

I really doubt it will be Huckabee for VP. He is from the south and the Republicans need someone from a state they don't have in the bag.

Posted by Cale | February 7, 2008 5:02 PM
4

This is an ignorant post.

McCain's resistance to torture is not absolute, his description of the situation in Iraq is a near-total fantasy, and he supports a defense budget that is larger than anything we've seen in real dollars since the total war days of WWII.

Also, Bush's handling of the budget is anything but Keynsian. This was not deficit spending to spur economic growth through internal improvements. This was using expanded military spending plus tax breaks to create an economic crisis through which the last remnants of the welfare state would be slashed to bits. It's called starving the beast. Look it up.

Oh, and the Republicans would "clean up their mess"? Based on what evidence, Mr. Science?

Posted by Weird Science | February 7, 2008 5:08 PM
5

Obama could rally at least some evangelical support in the south, and remember a few states are putting there electors towards the person who wins the popular vote

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 7, 2008 5:09 PM
6

I sympathize with the sentiment but can't endorse it. First: Huckabee is no huckster, in my opinion (except in the sense that all religion is a giant con). He really does represent the large American demographic that wants to dispense with the spirit and the letter of the Bill of Rights and institute theocracy. Don't forget that many of us once thought that G.W. Bush was a genial huckster, too.

Second, the quality the US needs in the next administration is the ability to clean up the Bush-Cheney mess, no matter how bad it is. Whether it's fair for Obama or Clinton to be stuck with that job is immaterial.

Posted by Marvin | February 7, 2008 5:09 PM
7

Golob you are retarded. Republicans suck, remember?

Posted by sittingduck | February 7, 2008 5:11 PM
8

I gotta agree with you Jonathan. A year ago I told my GF that Bush would start a war with Iran right before the general election.

Posted by notonthehill | February 7, 2008 5:11 PM
9

While I agree it would be even worse, at the same time you'll have to go on without me ... if they win I'm not even going to pretend I have the energy to stick around and watch America go belly up.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 7, 2008 5:12 PM
10

Very, very, very good points. Some of your best yet, Mr. Science man.


I'm stealing this as my opinion from now on, KTHX!

Posted by Non | February 7, 2008 5:13 PM
11

A small part of me thinks an R victory in 2008 might not be the worst possible thing. I still want a democratic victory, but want to pretenses of how bad things are likely to be in a year.

As far as McCain and his record, I'm basing much of what I wrote above on the thoughts of Robert Scheer, editor of TruthDig.com and all around smart and very liberal guy. He's been researching and writing a book on the military industrial complex that changed his (and eventually my) thoughts on McCain. Listen to last week's Left, Right and Center for a taste.

Huckabee scares the shit out of me, but it's hard to deny his charisma.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | February 7, 2008 5:16 PM
12

These are all perfectly valid points; but if you think Bush is a "true believer" think again, you've missed one of the key points about him and his administration - a testament to the incredible success of the layers of media smokescreen which has been so artfully created for the past 8 years.

Posted by MarkyMark | February 7, 2008 5:17 PM
13

make that "but I want no pretenses..."

Posted by Jonathan Golob | February 7, 2008 5:18 PM
14

heh, I totally remember people arguing this same idea in 2000 -- "Gore and Bush are pretty much interchangeable, and the economy is shitting the bed anyway -- better that Bush get saddled with the wreckage and then the Dems can come back with a much better candidate in 2004."

Yeah, that worked out.

Posted by blast from the recent past | February 7, 2008 5:30 PM
15

#14 Yes! That was exactly the sentiment at the time.

Don't be fooled people. The republicans are playing wit yo heads!

Posted by Cale | February 7, 2008 5:35 PM
16

What's this?
The Politics of Despair?????

a/k/a....Naderism?

Posted by unPC | February 7, 2008 5:45 PM
17
A small part of me says “let the fucking Republicans clean up their mess for once.”

But they won't.

Posted by tsm | February 7, 2008 5:46 PM
18

Yes, McCain is better than Bush, but who isn't? Huckabee for VP may seem like a good strategy since it will secure the votes of fundies who don't like McCain. But if the Dems run a candidate who can win the indie vote (read: Obama) this strategy may backfire and swing the inependents in our direction.

One of the worst legacies of the Bush administration (of so many to choose from) is anti-Americanism around the world. If we want to send a message to other countries that we are serious about mending fences and committed to getting along rather than acting like the schoolyard bully we need to put a Democrat into the White House. Replacing one idiotic Republican with a less idiotic Republican isn't going to be enough.

Posted by RainMan | February 7, 2008 5:49 PM
19

@17. Exactly. This is where my line of thinking really breaks down. I think McCain *might* be responsible enough to prove us wrong. But, I'd still rather see Obama or HRC in the office.

@16. I'm just trying to honestly assess where we are and where we're likely to be as a country in a year or so. The looming foreign and fiscal policy disasters make the debates about minor difference in health care plans seem, um, silly after a while.

The more I think along these scary and sad paths, the more I lean towards Obama as president (and Clinton staying in the senate, hopefully for decades.) The idea of these two great democratic leaders working together, in separate branches of government, makes me hopeful again.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | February 7, 2008 5:53 PM
20

@14, that's true. Few could have predicted the dot-com bubble's bursting would just lead to an even greater asset bubble - real estate, which is just now beginning to deflate with amazing effects neither party planned for.

Some clever economists (I know, it's hard to tell, but see this month's Harper's cover for an example) see several years of unavoidable nastiness while the finance/real estate asset bubble takes us into the dumper.

After that, we can either rebuild a non-bubble-reliant economy, or inflate a new one. (The Harper's fella pegs a combo of clean energy and infrastructure as the most likely candidate.)

But that's a choice that can't be made until after a few more years of steady, unplanned-for decline.

On the one hand, yeah, it might be politically advantageous to have Dems not taking the heat for being at the helm during a downturn. They can position themselves as loyal opposition fighting for the downtrodden, of whom there will be many, many more.

On the other, if people will be suffering genuine fear and relative poverty over the next few years, Dems have an obligation to consolidate power to guide us through a trying time.

Posted by tomasyalba | February 7, 2008 5:53 PM
21

Gov. Crist will probably be his running mate. And, since Crist is so popular in Florida, the GOP won't sweat the state in Nov.

Posted by Fitz | February 7, 2008 5:54 PM
22

Hopefully, the Europeans, Canadians and Australians have told Bush that if he starts a conflict with Iran that he is on his own in Afghanistan and everywhere else in the Middle-East. Of course his track record of listening to advice is not very good.


Posted by ratcityreprobate | February 7, 2008 5:54 PM
23

stick to science, golob. you sound like a freaking naderite.

Posted by bing | February 7, 2008 5:59 PM
24

Very good point. Call McCain what you will (and there's a lot there not to like), he's always been a reformer (for a Republican, at least). And if the economy slips into recession, whoever's president will have the mandate to initiate some real reforms that might just save us yet. Here's where McCain's age actually helps him, since he might view himself as a one-term president. This will make it even easier for him-- arguably easier than for anyone, democrat or republican-- to make the hard choices necessary to fix the economy (raise taxes?). I frankly don't trust either party to deal with the economy if it means upsetting their base (and it always does). McCain has a tradition of bucking his party line like few others. One thing I don't understand: How McCain is going to cut revenue sufficiently without pulling out of Iraq, I don't know. I think @3 has a good point on Bush economic policy. I suspect that wouldn't be the case for McCain, but who knows for sure...

On Iran, McCain scares me more. But I don't think even the morons in the Bush administration could really justify a war now, given the state of our armed forces. They desperately want to bomb Iran, granted, and maybe if they'd bothered to, say, finish one of their other wars first, it'd be possible. But right now, I sort of doubt it.

God, I hope Huckabee isn't the VP nominee. Wouldn't that make him the frontrunner for the presidency next election (if McCain only serves one term)? He legitimately scares me. I don't see him as a huckster at all-- in fact it's his aw, shucks populism that I think is fake. He's a Christianist, pure and simple. He's like some horrible Frankenstein combination of Bush and Clinton.

Posted by Mr Me | February 7, 2008 5:59 PM
25

@19, @17

My concern is that having a Dem clean up the mess will enforce a longer-term precedent based on what's been happening since Reagan: Republicans hand money over to defense contractors and let infrastructure deteriorate, Democrats have to cut spending and raise taxes to clean up the mess. Then, right about the time Dems are getting things back on track, the public are sick of the higher-taxes/fewer-programs formula and are ready to go back to Republicans -- who then fuck everything up all over again.

Basically, I don't want to put the Democratic Party in the position of having to do the book keeping on an endless Republican tax giveaway to defense contractors, big oil, and FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate).

Posted by Judah | February 7, 2008 6:05 PM
26

bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb iran ...

Posted by Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake | February 7, 2008 6:07 PM
27

@25 - I understand the scenario you wish to avoid, but the problem is that you're basically proposing a game of chicken over the nation's wellbeing, and I don't trust the Republicans to back off and do the responsible thing before the damage is totally irreversible. Not only will they not do what's needed, they can't - their base will not permit them to.

Posted by tsm | February 7, 2008 6:17 PM
28

Recessions usually last a couple of years, and many troops will likely come home in the next few years, so I think the next prez will get credit for "turning the country around".

Posted by SeattleBrad | February 7, 2008 6:22 PM
29

@20, almost as soon as the housing bubble began in 1999 people started to predict it bursting; it just took a bit longer and got a lot messier with the predatory lending and mortgage fraud than predicted at that time.

At any rate, my point was that even though people back then were right that bad times were ahead, no one foresaw the unchecked/unprecedented power grab by the executive branch, the inattention to security that left the US's front door open and unlocked for Al Qaida to attack, the imperialist saber-rattling, the degradation of Congress, the slide to the right (for a generation?) of the Supreme Court, etc.

It's this simple -- if you'd rather see a GOP administration fuck up the country more in order to have a supposed second party somehow "avoid blame", you're kidding yourself that you care about this country to begin with.

Posted by blast from the recent past | February 7, 2008 6:24 PM
30

seattle brad is right. march 2k - march 2k3 were not economic boom times. a recession by technical definition isnt even that long. lets be real though, the housing market is going to be fucked for a few years. not fucked like end of the world, but fucked by the amount of inventory backlog, by the decrease in the amount of qualified buyer, and a few more technical factors.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 7, 2008 6:30 PM
31

military industrial complex 2008!

Posted by skye | February 7, 2008 6:50 PM
32

There is the possibility of a McCain/Lieberman ticket. That would be entertaining.

Posted by Fritz | February 7, 2008 7:05 PM
33

@32: If true, add Connecticut to the GOP column. However, I can't see Lieberman running as VP again.

Posted by Really? | February 7, 2008 7:18 PM
34

oh yeah, mccain wants to kill amtrak.

and we would never get more sweet sweet light rail and you can bank on that.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080128

Posted by Cale | February 7, 2008 8:11 PM
35

If the democrats win we have a broken economy and an enormous foreign policy mess on our hands, its not like any of us want a republican in control but the alternative is four years of democratic apologies for the Bush mess followed by eight or twelve of republican destruction. Golob is dead on. I've already moved overseas.

Posted by Morgan | February 7, 2008 8:18 PM
36

I'm with all of you who call this thinking nuts. McCain will be Bush's true heir with a more congenial face. He'll continue all the same policies, including torture. The GOP can't be trusted to do anything but make the current situation worse. If the Dems come in and have to make hard choices, and the public holds that against them and not the people who left the mess in the first place, then we deserve to crumble into a Kevin Costner-style post apocalypse. Maybe then Obama can deliver hope like it was the mail, or Gore can try to lead the surviving humans to Dry Land.

Posted by spencer | February 7, 2008 8:26 PM
37

You know, I thought I read a lot of self-hate on the GOP pundit sites these days, but this entry really takes the cake in a psycho-delusional way. Michelle Malkin would be really proud.

Posted by mackro mackro | February 7, 2008 9:01 PM
38

@36 McCain might be bad, but the LAST thing he's gonna do is let torture continue.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 7, 2008 9:04 PM
39

If you care about the Iraq War, think before you vote

For 3 years, Sen. Clinton had taken the same position on Iraq as Bush.

She said the same words as Bush:
Sen. Clinton: "Every nation has to be either with us or against us"
Hear her say this on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbYGYiGjpUs

Sen. Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Report (NIE) which raised doubts about WMD in Iraq. Sen. Bob Graham even urged her and other senators to read the NIE before casting their vote on Iraq War but to no avail.

Sen. Clinton said that "intelligence reports clearly showed Iraq had WMD" even though she did not bother to read the NIE. (Senate proceedings Oct 12, 2002)

Sen. Clinton also said "Saddam had links to Al Qaeda" on the senate floor. This was a Bush talking point and no credible intelligence indicated so. Even several senators who voted for Iraq did not believe any such Al Qaeda link existed. (Senate proceedings Oct 12, 2002)

Sen. Clinton has not once admitted that her war vote was a mistake. How can she confront the Republicans saying that war was a mistake?

In Nov 2003, Sen. Clinton called for a ''tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy.'' She urged ''patience'' and worried about the political will ''to stay the course.'' She also said her vote for war was the right vote.

In Feb 2005, Sen. Clinton said that much of Iraq was ''functioning quite well" echoing Bush once again.

In 2005, Sen. Clinton appeared on "Meet the Press" saying it ''would be a mistake'' to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops or set a timetable.

Only after the majority of public opinion turned against the war, and she started thinking about her presidential run, Sen. Clinton changed her position.

Are you sure, she would not follow a "tough-minded" foreign policy similar to Bush's once she is elected. She already voted to label Iran's National Guard as terrorists giving Bush yet another pass.

Posted by Amy | February 7, 2008 9:18 PM
40

FDR achieved the most social programs ever when times were the toughest.

After Reagan I didn't mind Bush I because the econonmy was going to turn down and after the Ronnie "good times" that would have buried progressives forever. But this time everybody recognizes that the economy is bad and there is no love loss for Bush II.

Turning this into better times offers a great opportunity for a long progressive era. I like the idea of Clinton/Obama to set up 16 years but I'd be happy with Obama and a hope for someone good in eight years.

Posted by whatever | February 7, 2008 9:29 PM
41

Clinton is not beating McCain in the polls right now. I hope Democrats don't become too sure.

RealClearPolitics average of polls:

McCain 46.7
Clinton 45.3

Obama 47.5
McCain 44.2

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Posted by Amy | February 7, 2008 9:44 PM
42

I am not saying this to rain on anyone's parade, or to talk shit about anyone's chosen candidate, but:

Amy, my dear, there is another recent ABC poll that has Obama losing to McCain by 4 points. Obama's numbers are going to tank if he gets the nomination. I'm not saying he can't win, but the fucktards who say "Look Hillary looses to McCain!" are either being purposefully misleading or stupid as shit. There are several different polls that show her beating McCain more than Obama. However, it's all irrelevant. Kerry was 14 POINTS ahead of Bush four years ago. Any poll that shows Obama or Clinton beating McCain right now is meaningless.
I think the point a lot of Clinton supporters are making is that Hillary is so loved/hated that while her upwards momentum may be a challenge, she certainly isn't going to lose much support from the independents that she already has. The smear machine has done its worse for 15 years, and she's still standing. To deny this is delusional.
However, Obama has never run a competitive race, and he honestly has nowhere to go but down. Republicans are not going to vote for him. McCain is a national hero. He is actually even polling better than expected with younger voters. I honestly don't know if either candidate can beat McCain, but I honestly feel Hillary has a better chance ONLY because she is so hated. This is just a recent analysis I have heard that makes sense in a way.
Obama's youth and (sometimes) smugness will NOT do well contrasted with McCain's experience and folksiness. Obama is going to talk about hope to McCain? Sigh...get ready for President McCain...

Posted by The dB's | February 7, 2008 10:43 PM
43

Are you totally, irrevocably mad??

A Republican president when we have 3 relatively sane Supreme Court positions coming up in the next few years.

We CANNOT lose this election!

Posted by NewYorker | February 8, 2008 12:29 AM
44

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?! The Stranger is arguing in favor of another Republican president?!

I am disgusted. Make no mistake, if a Republican - any Republican - wins the next election, we will virtually lose our democracy. There probably won't be another chance to elect a sane leader. Golob is essentially arguing that since Bush fucked the country, another Republican should be elected. With that kind of mindset, why should the Republicans ever change?

John McCain is not a moderate. He worships at the alter of Bush. He is against abortion, gay marriage, and responsible healthcare. In an interview on The Daily Show, he shamelessly defended the war in Iraq, saying it was a good idea but poorly executed. Just how the fuck should it have been done?

I won't even touch on Huckabee. That man is the antichrist.

That you would even suggest something like this is reprehensible. I have lost all respect for you Mr. Golob. You deserve to live in the country that Republicans built.

Posted by Brandon J. | February 8, 2008 10:06 AM
45

Hell, yeah, McCain! Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran! With nukes, I hope! Glass parking lot, baby!

I'm sure the 8-1 Supreme Court majority he'll have during his Presidency will endorse his suspension of Haebeus Corpus for American citizens and his imposition of martial law.

100 more years!

Posted by MadDogM13 | February 8, 2008 10:16 AM
46

Egads! Willing to think about all the possibilities, beyond those you desire or think most likely? Get called Michelle Malkin!

To be clear, once again, I really want a democrat to win. Shockingly, as a marginally compensated human embryonic stem cell researcher, I'm not *actually* thrilled about another republican president.

I just ran through a few thought experiments starting with a few questions.
Could McCain and Huckabee win? (According to polls, maybe. And to be clear again, I don't want them to win.)
Will Bush bomb Iran before leaving office? (Possible and maybe even likely.)

I actually strongly agree with NewYorker@43. Court appointees matter, and McCain would be *terrible*. Still, the Senate gets a vote.

whatever@40 is correct. FDR did great work, amazing things, as a democratic president cleaning up after republican disasters. He also could take four terms to do so.

A benefit of opening your mind a teeny, tiny bit? You can think about how to deal with the *possibility* of a war with Iran and/or a republican president in a year.

What I want? A strong, very strong, democratic senate. Thus, I favor leaving the stronger senator--Hillary is inarguably a stronger senator than Obama--in the senate, to nip at the heels of the next president and keep things in check.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | February 8, 2008 10:21 AM
47

Oh really? Than I'm sure you were lying when you said "a small part of me WANTS the pair to win". You went on to say:

"McCain’s genuine moderation on several key issues—his absolute refusal to support torture; his willingness to speak honestly about what comes next in Iraq; his career-long fight against bullshit weapons programs—really does help him win over independents."

You're right about that Mr. Golob, and if you keep writing tacit endorsements like this McCain will scoop up enough independents to carry the White House. It's a common Republican tactic: Appear to be moderate, get elected, and then take a shit on the American people and the Constitution. What I can't understand Mr. Golob, is why you're helping with this.

Posted by Brandon J. | February 8, 2008 10:41 AM
48

Just remember...before anybody mentions FDR, remember that a certain war helped rebuild our economy during his term. Before that, certain programs did not work out that well.

Posted by frostillicus | February 8, 2008 3:28 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).