John McCain's three strikes?

[dutch508]

  grantcart  (1000+ posts)       Fri Jul-11-08 03:09 AM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6485941
John McCain's Candidacy for Presidency should have ended today 
 Advertisements [?]Three Economic Gaffes in three days should be enough


Certain liberties are acceptable in politics and national campaigns but striking out on three successive pitches on basic policy issues as the McCain campaign has should have launched the entire MSM into a hospital vigil as the McCain campaign should now be in intensive care on massive life support.

Unfortunately Rev Jackson seemed to be channeling George Carlin and the cable news shows found themselves having great fun titilating over the word "nuts", except it might have been "dick".

Here are the three strikes that the McCain camp underwent in rapid succession:





Strike One

McCain calls the concept of Social Security "an absolute disgrace"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugN8Rn5baqM

John Marshall at Slate documents how McCain's campaign continued to attack, not the current state of Social Security but the initial design, where present day workers contribute and part of that contribution is used for present day retirees.

1) That's how the system was designed to operate. And it's served as financial bedrock of retirement security in this country for going on a century. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/203287.php

2)In other words, there's no question that John McCain thinks that the problem with Social Security is the way it was designed at the very beginning, the way it was always designed to work. Sometimes he just uses more flowery language than others. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/203377.php

3) Now, as Mr. McCain might, let's have some straight talk. What McCain believes is no different from what President Bush and others did and do believe when they wanted to phase out Social Security and replace it with a system of private investment accounts. He's just been a bit clumsier about hiding what he's pushing for. The debate about Social Security is the same as it was in 2005 and in most respects the same as it was in 1965. You have one group who believe in the current system -- which is an intergenerational bargain, insuring a baseline level of retirement security as well as insurance against premature, disability and for dependent children. The other side -- McCain's side -- thinks this is just wrong, morally and economically. And in its place they want to create a system of individual private investment accounts -- similar to a lifetime 401k.

That's the essence of the debate. And no one should be deceived by McCain's own efforts to twist and spin his own words retrospectively. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/203491.php

This alone should have ended McCain's campaign - on to strike two








Strike Two

McCain's claim that he will end the Iraqi war by 2013 and that he will balance the budget with it is just laughable

This is really a two-fer - his claim that he intends that he will end the war and that will balance the budget


http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead /

John McCain’s plan to balance the budget by 2013 may have just taken the prize for Most Ridicule Sustained in a 24-Hour Period. (Before that, McCain's and Clinton’s gas-tax holiday proposals held the title.) The biggest gripe: It’s hard to see how McCain would sustain the Bush tax cuts, which the CBO estimates would create a $443 billion deficit by 2013, and still find room for his estimated $300 billion in additional tax proposals while also eliminating the deficit.

The McCain campaign promises to reach the Big Zero through a combination of economic growth, controlled spending, and bipartisan budget efforts. But they don’t provide any numbers to show how much the economy must grow, how much spending they’d rein in, or what areas they’d trim. (Read his whole plan here.) Then there’s this:

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

This statement is … problematic. For one thing, reducing deficit spending doesn’t free up money. It’s just means we don’t create money. So while it may reduce the deficit, it does nothing to reduce the overall debt and balance the budget.

But there’s another problem: Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will cost money before it saves money. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that reducing troops levels to 75,000 by 2013 would cost an additional $205 billion (that is, in addition to current spending levels) between 2008 and 2013. Only after that would the United States start saving—or, rather, not spending cash we don’t have. A faster drawdown to 30,000 troops by 2010 would reduce the deficit over the same period, but only by $70 billion. (Read the CBO estimate here; details here.) The CBO will have a new estimate in September.

So even if McCain was able to achieve his definition of victory in Iraq as laid out in his “Four Year Vision” speech in May—“The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role”—it wouldn’t likely save money until later. And it would certainly play little to no role in balancing the budget by 2013.











Strike Three

McCain's Number one economic surrogate states that American Whiners are imagining Recession


First how much does McCain trust Phil Gramm on economics?


At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he "doesn't really understand economics" and then pointed to his adviser and former Senate colleague, Phil Gramm - whom he had brought with him to the meeting - as the expert he turns to on the subject, The Huffington Post has learned. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-econo...

After joining the campaign, Gramm has remained by the candidate's side to "vouch for Mr. McCain's fiscal and security bona fides, " according to the Dallas Morning News. Even prior to McCain's flop, Gramm was advocating on his behalf, writing a flattering February 2007 oped in the Wall Street Journal on his behalf.

And to whom did McCain tell Moore he turns to for advise? "His foremost economic guru," wrote the columnist, "is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration)."


Now Today McCain acts like he doesn't even know the man while Gramm continues to stand by his statement that this is a "nation of whiners . .(suffering) a mental recession"


http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead /


McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm did his candidate no favors Wednesday when he told the Washington Times that the current economic downturn is a "mental recession." "We have sort of become a nation of whiners," Gramm said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."


Off-message much?

McCain repudiated Gramm’s comments: "Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me, so I strongly disagree." Obama, meanwhile, mocked him.


But Gramm refused to play the gaffe game. "I'm not going to retract any of it,” he told the Washington Post. "Every word I said was true." He explained that although "the economy is bad," it doesn’t qualify as a "recession." And that other part? "When I said we've become a nation of whiners, I'm talking about our leaders. I'm not talking about our people."

The funny part is, recession or not, Gramm and his investors have felt the pain as much as anyone. Just look at the stock of UBS, where Gramm serves as vice chairman. It’s dropped by 70 percent over the last year. (See Daniel Gross' recent Slate piece to find out why.)



After subjecting the country to 8 years of continuous gaffes can the country even contemplate a gaffe a day leader that cannot run a national campaign?
 

NattPang  (569 posts)      Fri Jul-11-08 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. What can we do about this?
 I want to do something.
I'm tired of everyone
going after our candidate,
while their candidate slides by.

This is sick.

grantcart  (1000+ posts)       Fri Jul-11-08 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. unfortunately he could still be President 
 

Despite the bungling there is only a 6 point difference in the polls.

We all know that there will be atleast one October Surprise.

There will be slurs and attacks on Obama by means of association.

It is too early now but after the convention the fear machine will be in full operation.

TheKentuckian (92 posts)      Fri Jul-11-08 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. In a truer version of reality
 Being anywhere near Bush or his policies should have been debilitating. Just being Republican would put you in danger of a default landslide against you.

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran would have put a considerable dent in his chances. Almost done.

The off the chart flip/flopping, would have created a firestorm of doubt.

Not knowing anything about the economy would raise some eyebrows.

A 100 years in Iraq, even out of context would have been a substantial uppercut.

A whole slew of pandered to bat shit crazy preachers would at least take the opponent's church off the table.

Graham's comments should send him into the 30's percentage wise.

Carly's utter lies about his record on mandating coverage of birth control combined with McSame's stammering, evasion, saying he hadn't really thought about it, saying that he had to refer to his record and get back on that, and of course the look on his face...freaking priceless; would run off every woman that owns a pair of shoes and doesn't keep maternity wear in the regular rotation. Most guys would at least demand the removal of the Straight Talk Express crap before they'd consider stopping the laughing.

I didn't know you could fit your entire person into a cookie jar.

Amongst many other reasons he should be done. McSame's campaign is awful, probably the worst I've ever seen at this level.

Obama is by no means running a bad race, little missteps here and there but nothing crippling. There should be a mighty spread. I think we can get that still if people would pay attention to reality.

what a bunch of retards

[Rebel]

Social Security IS a ****ing disgrace. As for a recession, we have YET to experience two consecutive months of negative growth. I.e. we haven't HAD a recession. As for his balancing the budget, I don't see how it's possible in 4 years, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As for the war, we need to stay until the job is done and ensure not ONE F'N American death was in vain.

[jukin]

Correction:  We have yet to even have a single quarter of negative growth.  In fact, the fourth quarter of 2007 was revised up from 0.6 to 1%.