McCain supporters, where's his substance?

[CharlestonChad]

Guys and gals, I read on here frequently. I notice that the biggest criticism of Obama is "substance over style" and "empty suit". This is a legit concern for many. So I wonder, if this is a concern then why do I only hear one side of this argument? "Obama is not electable because he lacks substance" is fair, but only if the other candidate actually has substance behind his words. So I ask you, McCain supporter, where's his substance? What issues would you say McCain speaks about that he has substance to back up his claims? I watch him in the media tell us we will win Iraq, balance our budget, end the recession, and solve many other problems, by the end of his first term. These are his words, not mine.

This is your chance to defend McCain. I will stay civil, because I'm honestly concerned that the "McCain is a man of substance" concept is a completely fabricated political tactic.

 

[CharlestonChad]

anyone?

 

[CharlestonChad]

Obama and McCain, substance and celebrity
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Barack Obama brought up John McCain’s instantly infamous campaign commercial featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton today, asking McCain, “s that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election is about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?”

As it turns out, McCain was asked about the same ad today at an event in Racine, Wis.

Woman asking question: “First of all, Sen. McCain, I want to commend you on your service for our country. But earlier this year in April, you made comments about the mudslinging and how it had been affecting the other campaigns and how you didn’t want to do that. But recently, especially last week when Obama went to Europe, it seems like there were a lot of campaign ads that you put out that were doing that. And the one yesterday comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I was like, ‘OK.’ So it seems like to Americans like me and other people that you may have flip-flopped on what you said earlier. And what is your response to that?”

McCain: “First of all, let me say there are differences, and we are drawing those differences. And I said earlier, I admire his campaign. But what we are talking about here is substance and not style. And what we are talking about is who has an agenda for the future of America. Campaigns are tough, but I’m proud of the campaign that we have run. I’m proud of the issues that we have been trying to address with the American people…. So, all I can say is that we are proud of that commercial.”

A lot of reporters are seizing on the fact that McCain is “proud” of his ridiculous commercial, which is clearly odd. But I was also struck by his insistence that “what we are talking about here is substance and not style.” I didn’t see McCain’s facial expression, but I can’t help but wonder if (and how) he kept a straight face.

Substance and not style? Has there been anything of any substance at all from the McCain campaign in months? I suppose there was at least some policy talk recently when McCain commented on his tax proposals, his position on affirmative action, his position on gay adoption, and his ideas for Social Security — but this “substance” didn’t last long, because McCain’s campaign, in each instance, said he didn’t really mean what he was saying.

And speaking of all of this bizarre celebrity talk, Yglesias raises a point I’ve been meaning to mention.

Pardon me if you’ve seen this point elsewhere, but in what sense is John McCain not a celebrity? I’ve seen him on the covers of magazines, on television, in newspapers, doing guest appearances on SNL, etc.

Could you possibly be a major party presidential nominee and not be a celebrity? But in particular, McCain actually stands out among politicians as being someone who was a famous celebrity first and then parlayed his fame into a political career, rather than merely being someone who’s well-known for being an important politician.

Indeed, John Weaver, McCain’s long-time friend and confidant, made a similar observation yesterday, saying, “John’s been a celebrity ever since he was shot down.”

I suppose it’s possible the McCain gang means that Obama is a celebrity in more of “Hollywood” fashion. But that doesn’t quite work either.

Take a look at McCain’s IMDB page and tell me he doesn’t qualify as a “celebrity.” There’s the guest role in “Wedding Crashers,” there’s the film adaptation of his military career, there’s the appearance on “24,” etc. Put it this way — do you know who’s made more appearances on “The Daily Show” than anyone in any field? John McCain.

Well, perhaps the McCain gang doesn’t mean celebrity in a “Hollywood” sense, but more in the sense that people around the world admire Barack Obama, and are captivated by his candidacy. And if that’s what the McCain campaign means, they’re going to have to do more to explain why that’s a bad quality for an American president to have.

 

[Roethlesberger]

McCain has a lot of substance as far as I'm concerned. He definitely showed it on Saturday night a the Civil Forum.

1) He's for lowering everyone's taxes, as apposed to dividing us up into "rich" & "non-rich"

2) He's pro-life, and he actually answered the question, whereas, Obama did a tap-dance and copped out with "That's beyond my pay grade." I suppose allowing people to "play God" with abortion isn't "beyond his pay grade."

3) Accomplishing our objective in Iraq with victory instead of the "cut & run" offered up by the left is substinative.

... just off the top ...

 

[Annie]

Lord knows he wasn't my first pick, but lack of accomplishment in government isn't the problem:

John McCain - Congresspedia

and NPR on their ability to 'reach across the aisle':

Measuring McCain And Obama's Bipartisan Efforts : NPR

 

[busara]

McCain has a lot of substance as far as I'm concerned. He definitely showed it on Saturday night a the Civil Forum.

1) He's for lowering everyone's taxes, as apposed to dividing us up into "rich" & "non-rich"

2) He's pro-life, and he actually answered the question, whereas, Obama did a tap-dance and copped out with "That's beyond my pay grade." I suppose allowing people to "play God" with abortion isn't "beyond his pay grade."

3) Accomplishing our objective in Iraq with victory instead of the "cut & run" offered up by the left is substinative.

... just off the top ...

so if we stay until we 'win' (which will take ? long), what exactly will we have 'won?'

 

[Roethlesberger]

///so if we stay until we 'win' (which will take ? long), what exactly will we have 'won?'

Well, what did we win in Japan? Germany? Korea? The last 2 of which we STILL have troops stationed. ... The answer of course is a LASTING PEACE and a strong ally.

Contrast this with Vietnam where all we have are painful memories and hard lessons learned.

 

[Sock Puppet]

This is your chance to defend McCain. I will stay civil, because I'm honestly concerned that the "McCain is a man of substance" concept is a completely fabricated political tactic.

And you think Obama is a man of 'more substance'? After all that we have learned about this Senator from Illinois and the nonsense that he has been spouting in this campaign, and you still think that he is the 'better man for the job'?

 

[KMAN]

Guys and gals, I read on here frequently. I notice that the biggest criticism of Obama is "substance over style" and "empty suit". This is a legit concern for many. So I wonder, if this is a concern then why do I only hear one side of this argument? "Obama is not electable because he lacks substance" is fair, but only if the other candidate actually has substance behind his words. So I ask you, McCain supporter, where's his substance? What issues would you say McCain speaks about that he has substance to back up his claims? I watch him in the media tell us we will win Iraq, balance our budget, end the recession, and solve many other problems, by the end of his first term. These are his words, not mine.

This is your chance to defend McCain. I will stay civil, because I'm honestly concerned that the "McCain is a man of substance" concept is a completely fabricated political tactic.

I don't think anyone on this board is a die hard McCain fan... It's just that between him, and someone who I know will kill the economy and take more of my money away I choose McCain.

 

[KMAN]

///so if we stay until we 'win' (which will take ? long), what exactly will we have 'won?'

Well, what did we win in Japan? Germany? Korea? The last 2 of which we STILL have troops stationed. ... The answer of course is a LASTING PEACE and a strong ally.

Contrast this with Vietnam where all we have are painful memories and hard lessons learned.

I think that is above their heads...

 

[AllieBaba]

so if we stay until we 'win' (which will take ? long), what exactly will we have 'won?'

We will have won a modicom of peace and a representative government for a previously oppressed and tortured people, where Americans will be viewed as friends instead of enemies, in the middle east.

I'd say those are pretty worthy objectives.

 

[busara]

///so if we stay until we 'win' (which will take ? long), what exactly will we have 'won?'

Well, what did we win in Japan? Germany? Korea? The last 2 of which we STILL have troops stationed. ... The answer of course is a LASTING PEACE and a strong ally.

Contrast this with Vietnam where all we have are painful memories and hard lessons learned.

well, germany and japan were trying to take over the world. in korea, the peninsula was divided in half by the US and Russia, and a war emerged to re-unify the country. both the US and Russia were involved because it was treated as a proxy war in the greater cold war. there we kept the peninsula from becoming all communistic. we left bases to discourage attack. same with germany. vietnam was similar to korea in that it was divided and there was a war to reunify.

and silly me, i thought we were in iraq to get the WMD's. no wait, we're there to bring democracy. no wait, we're there to set up an ally. no wait, we're there to ..........

 

[busara]

We will have won a modicom of peace and a representative government for a previously oppressed and tortured people, where Americans will be viewed as friends instead of enemies, in the middle east.

I'd say those are pretty worthy objectives.

yeah, we should fight so other people can have freedom, just like other countries did for us.

i thought personal responsibility was important

 

[jillian]

Doesn't matter... Bush hung McCain out to dry on yet another issue...

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

 

[Roethlesberger]

// silly me, i thought we were in iraq to get the WMD's. no wait, we're there to bring democracy. no wait, we're there to set up an ally. no wait, we're there to ..........

As one that was initially skeptical of the WMD and did not feel threatened too much by Saddam, I give you that. I'd rather we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place. BUT that's already been done. Bush has egg all over his face about the WMD's ... That has nothing to do with the task at hand. There is a huge mess to clean up and cutting & running is not the answer. (I think even his 'messiah-ship' Obama even realizes this. Why that warmongor even wants to escalate in Afganistan! [for shame!] :-D ... LOL!)

 

[busara]

// silly me, i thought we were in iraq to get the WMD's. no wait, we're there to bring democracy. no wait, we're there to set up an ally. no wait, we're there to ..........

As one that was initially skeptical of the WMD and did not feel threatened too much by Saddam, I give you that. I'd rather we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place. BUT that's already been done. Bush has egg all over his face about the WMD's ... That has nothing to do with the task at hand. There is a huge mess to clean up and cutting & running is not the answer. (I think even his 'messiah-ship' Obama even realizes this. Why that warmongor even wants to escalate in Afganistan! [for shame!] :-D ... LOL!)

you mean the mess we created and have been trying to clean up for the past 5 years? not to mention the mess in afganistan we created and then bailed on to make one in iraq. how long would we need to be there, how many lives need to be lost, how much money should be spent to fix it? but youre right, we should stay and keep doing the iraqi peoples job for them

 

[sealybobo]

Guys and gals, I read on here frequently. I notice that the biggest criticism of Obama is "substance over style" and "empty suit". This is a legit concern for many. So I wonder, if this is a concern then why do I only hear one side of this argument? "Obama is not electable because he lacks substance" is fair, but only if the other candidate actually has substance behind his words. So I ask you, McCain supporter, where's his substance? What issues would you say McCain speaks about that he has substance to back up his claims? I watch him in the media tell us we will win Iraq, balance our budget, end the recession, and solve many other problems, by the end of his first term. These are his words, not mine.

This is your chance to defend McCain. I will stay civil, because I'm honestly concerned that the "McCain is a man of substance" concept is a completely fabricated political tactic.

McCain on healthcare: Wear more sunblock

McCain on Oil: Give the oil companies more land and hope for the best

McCain on alternative energy: Give someone a prize if they come up with a battery car or something better.

McCain on middle east: War war and more War.

 

[Jon]

you mean the mess we created and have been trying to clean up for the past 5 years?

Yes, that mess. What, we just walk away? What good will we have done then? We can't just go pick fights and then walk away when we're tired of it.

Responsibility rests on the hands of the United States. Period.

 

[busara]

Yes, that mess. What, we just walk away? What good will we have done then? We can't just go pick fights and then walk away when we're tired of it.

Responsibility rests on the hands of the United States. Period.

yeah, we went in and caused a mess, and it is needlessly costing us a lot of money and lives. if the iraqi's never take responsibility themselves, unlike many of the kurds in the northern part of the country, will we just stay there forever as police and occupiers? i dont see that doing anybody any 'good.' we've been there 5 years. if we stay another 5 and the place doesnt look 'good,' do we stay 5 more? if the iraqi's want democracy, let them fight for it. the repubs are always talking about taking responsibility, why dont they want the iraqi's to do so?

and i have an idea. how bout we transfer the cost of war soley to bush, cheney, and rumsfeld?

 

[Jon]

why dont they want the iraqi's to do so?

I don't remember the Iraqis asking us to invade them. If I recall, a lot of them hated that we were there, even if we did get rid of Saddam Hussein for them.