September 27, 2008
McCain's Reagan Gaffe: 100 percent Wrong about Reagan and Soviet Negotiations (Brent Budowsky)
When McCain said during the debate that Ronald Reagan refused to negotiate with the Soviets until Gorbachev has instituted reforms, McCain had the facts and the truth exactly backwards. Shortly after the attempted assassination of Reagan — shortly after he assumed office — Reagan wrote a personal plea to Leonid Brezhnev calling for a new era of reconciliation and hoping for diplomatic negotiations to achieve it.
I am linking here a story from Time magazine that includes the first draft of the letter Reagan wrote to Brezhnev, in his own handwriting, with his plea for negotiations.
John McCain simply does not know what he is talking about. In fact, not only did Reagan write to Brezhnev in his own handwriting, not only did Reagan send a final version of the letter that was released in 1990, Reagan said, famously, that he wanted diplomacy to improve relations but Soviet leaders kept dying on him before he could achieve it.
Dwight Eisenhower believed in negotiating with adversaries. Nixon believed it. Ford believed it. Even George W. Bush has come to believe it. But John McCain stands alone, radically out of touch with every Republican and Democratic president since World War II, isolated and wrong.
That is bad enough, but to so grossly and falsely misrepresent Ronald Reagan on a matter so important only proves that loud talk, angry threats, name-calling, bellicose rhetoric and misinformation are no substitute in a president for sound judgment, common sense, strategic vision and an accurate knowledge of history.
McCain was dead wrong about Reagan and that is a mistake no president should make.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 55 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
McSame is unfit for command. He had the opportunity to back up his age (72) with a credible running mate, but he failed. Palin is way, way out of her league.
Spot on Brent.
Comment by Jesse Templeton — September 27, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Good Morning Brent,
My condolences on the weird job Obama did last evening.
I read you blog today. Unfortunately, my interest in Politics did not peak until GWB Sr. So I would have to do research to see what you are talking about . I am certain that Igor and Robert R will have some solid input about that. They are excellent posters.
All I can say right now is your blog is beside the point. Another distraction.
The point is, in this day and age Obama should not flex is perogative and negotiate with people who want to anialate us and our allies. He has not got a clue. All Obama has is a stubborn ego, and outstandingly poor judgement… Hense, passing over 18 million HRC voters. Oh and, what is this irreverence calling Sen McCain "John" all night at the debate.
To correct your assertion that McCain should negotiate with rouge nations, I listened to Codolezza Rice the other night who was emphatic on not sending a leader to negotiate with rogue leaders, she explained, it takes a lot of people to support these kind of talks, with the assistance from numerous allies. So, I believe you, Brent, should restate your remark about GWB. If he believed what Obama states, don't you think he would be doing that as we speak?
Maybe you need to define adversary and define terrorist.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 27, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Brent, I hadn't even caught that error as I watched it. I was distracted by McCain's body language, which showed him in a very bad light. Lehrer tried to create an atmosphere where the candidates were addressing one another, but McCain refused. He put on his phony smile whenever Obama addressed him, refused to make any eye contact whatsoever, and at one point began squeezing his eyes closed as Obama spoke. Those kinds of subtle gestures can speak more loudly to viewers than what the candidates actually say, and I believe that could explain why early polls favored Obama as the winner. He seemed far more relaxed, calm, and willing to directly address his opponent.
Interestingly, this isn't the first time that McCain's body language has told a story in and of itself. If you revisit the footage of McCain introducing Palin as his running mate, his body language is bizarre. He stands behind her, repeatedly clenching his fists and robotically adopting that same strained smile as last night.
Fear? Anger? Dishonesty? Whatever the reason for these peculiar gestures McCain makes, they don't go unnoticed and they are very detrimental to his image.
Comment by Melissa — September 27, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
#1
Your attacks against McCain age look ridiculous after yesterday's debate. He was sharp, alert, assertive and confident. Looking at genetics alone, McCain's mother is still going strong at 96 while Obama's died at an early age. Thus, Obama has a similar chance of being diagnosed of terminal cancer at age 49 before his term is over.
Comment by Misha — September 27, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Brent,
Thank you for pointing out such a "monumental" gaffe by McCain. That did it for me and I'm voting for change now,
Anyhow, it was disgusting how your guy kept calling Sen.McCain "John". Why? To make him mad? To show disrespect to someone 25 years his senior? That's not how Americans are brought up and behave. I guess since Obama is only 50% American and 50% African Muslim, that's OK as long as he stands correctly on issues, right?
Comment by Misha — September 27, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Obama misrepresented Kissinger's views to the point where Kissinger had to issue and angry statement confirming McCain's view of his position and denying Obama's. Obama doesn't know anything at all, he contradicted himself on Iran which he had earlier said was a tiny country and no real threat, and on anti-missile defense. He just says whatever and things nobody will notice. What a clueless junior Senator!
Comment by Igor R. — September 27, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Igor,
Obama didn't misrepresent Kissinger's views. McCain, confused as always, attributed something to Obama that he never said and subsequently argued with his false attribution.
I've clipped the relevant portions from the transcript to prove the point:
OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.
OBAMA: Of course not.
MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.
OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.
When we talk about preconditions — and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions — the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.
MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his — of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
OBAMA: We will take a look.
MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not — he would not say that presidential top level.
OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/816036-p4.html
Comment by Melissa — September 27, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
A "letter" is not negotiations. Negotions occur when both sides give in a little to acheive a goal that benefits everyone. That can't be acheived in a single letter.
Brent — how much does the Obama campaign pay you to be their patsy? I hope it's worth giving up your journalistic integrity.
Comment by Laurence Socci — September 27, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
#4. Misha, how dare you say that Obama has a similar chance to be diagnosed of terminal cancer at age 49? Have you lost your mind? Just because McCain's mother is alive in her 90's has nothing to do with McCain. He's too old to be running, he's grumpy and erratic. Obama was more than respectful. In fact, he was too nice to McCain. It was John McCain who was disrespectful, dismissive, arrogant, rude, with an 'entitlement' mentality that he should be president, and nobody else has the right.
Clearly he was angry at Obama, and everything else in his life. We dont need that kind of non-leadership, and we don't need comments stating that Obama has a good chance of dying in two years of cancer; that's outrageous, even for you.
Comment by Joyce — September 27, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Obama is just not suitable to represent United States in the world stage. His demeanor is obnoxious, and with his constant praising of China's achievements that piece of Kenyan scum is getting under my skin. Yesterday it was China's great achievement with a space walk. Big deal! Is that schmuck aware that we and Russians first tried spacewalk back in 1960s?
Before that, it was China's "impressive" organizing of Olympics. I tell you, Obama envies China's society model with centralized economy, all decisions made by Government, etc. He conveniently ignores their human rights abuses, just like he ignores Iran's human rights record and would sit with them across a table.
Voters cannot afford such crook in the Oval Office.
Comment by Misha — September 27, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
We want a leader who does not hate everybody. In fact, we don't want China making and goods and processing our chickens. We want American made products and services, and we have no chance of that with a McCain presidency. You are looking a less than one half of one percent of what Obama said. Obviously, you, too, are very angry. Apparently, you think we should go to war with Iran also. No wonder you support mcCain.
Comment by Joyce — September 27, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Joyce, #9
Obama was not respectful to McCain by calling him "John" he was not respectful to Dr.Kissinger by misstating his views, and overall I'd be embarrassed by this activist as our President.
Regarding Obama's chances of cancer diagnosis, that's in response to constant liberal media's barrage against McCain of not making it past 4 months into his Presidency. It's disgusting, especially the commercials run at NBC by Osama.
Comment by Misha — September 27, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Brent, it always interesting to see what kind of brilliant response your columns from the reactionarys on this blog. It would be just a good laugh if the stakes weren't so high.
How about JOK-HIC, has to do research to know what you're talking about? Most folks would do researh first, then post. But then, follow the leader, McCain and shoot first, aim later. Never fear though, JOK-HIC will get the true story later, from RR and Igor, the World's Greatest Experts.
Then, of course, we can always expect a Misha, the trailer trash contingent, to weigh in with a slightly-veiled racist comment. She's miffed because Obama treated McCain as an equal. I guess she thinks he should have called him "Massa."
Igor never skips a chance to weigh in. JOK-HIC has her research now. Igor sums it all up for us: Obama knows nothing at all. But, what a surprise! This may be the first time Igor has called Obama a Senator. What? No Evil Muslim Marxist Terrorist today? But then it's still early…
It is good to have a little help answering these nuts; nice rebuttal on the Kissinger straw man by Melissa.
Keep up the good work, Brent.
Your thoughts and passion are an important contribution.
Besides, I enjoy a good laugh reading the ridiculous comments from the ditto-heads.
Comment by smilinjack — September 27, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Melissa, Kissinger begs to differ.
Comment by Igor R. — September 27, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Joyce, it's Obama who likes to refer to himself as "we" and to look at people with contempt by raising his chin higher than anybody in public life who shows contempt. You know and everybody else knows that the reason he called McCain "John" was to irritate him. The proper decorum at these things is to call each other "Senator" or whichever title applies. And Obama's smirks, this was Al Gore revisited. What a loser!
Comment by Igor R. — September 27, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
If anyone thinks Misha and Igor are angry now, just wait until the Palin/Biden debate. You can only memorize so much without actually knowing what you are talking about, and she's not even good at that. All she has done is attack Obama. This is going to be good. Pork barrel palin telling us how she is going to clean up Washington and go to war with Russia while sticking up for average Americans as she replaces Jewish businessmen with Christian business men while being accountable to everyone after she refuses to answer a subpoena. Not to mention her new found knowledge on global warming which man has nothing to do with. And none of this has anything to do with the church she attends. You know, the one that recognizes witchcraft, and says the war in Iraq was a mission from God. No, maybe she won't have a problem in the debate after all.
Comment by yvonne — September 27, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Brent,
As usual, it is you who is 100% wrong. McCain was exactly correct. Here, let me give you an english lesson:
Negotiate: (v) : to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter.
Reagan did not negotiate. He sent that letter in REPLY to a letter Breshnev sent. Get YOUR facts straight. There was no negotiating in the letter.
You go so far in stretching the truth I bet your definition of truth includes the word rubber.
Comment by ObamaNOT — September 27, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
12. #Misha: 'John' is his name. They are both United States Senators. The high and mighty McCain is 'John' is more ways than one. Interpret at your own risk.
Comment by Joyce — September 28, 2008 @ 12:42 am
#14 Kissinger disagrees? He's got a problem with the transcript?
No, Igor, what happened here is that Johnny falsely attributed words to Obama and then argued with his false attribution. Then his campaign called up his "friend for 35 years" and told him the false attribution, and Kissinger responded publicly against the false attribution.
You can't argue with the transcript, and it's very clear Obama never stated or implied that Kissinger advocated "presidential-level talks." He said only "contacts without preconditions"–which is factually accurate with regards to what Kissinger stated on September 20th.
Marc Ambinder seems to get it. Maybe he can help explain it to you.
"A debater's trick: answering a charge that was not leveled.
"
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/dr_kissinger_parses_dr_kissing.php
Comment by Melissa — September 28, 2008 @ 12:45 am
yvonne, I don't get angry, anger is a sign of weakness. Palin will do fine if they find a way for her to just say whatever the heck she wants instead of memorizing all the lines they are feeding her. Biden contradicts Obama or makes a gaffe every other day (the "old school" McCain ad, Hillary is a better VP pick, Roosevelt addressing the nation on TV, stand up paralyzed Chuck) and everybody just chuckles. Let Palin be Palin!
Comment by Igor R. — September 28, 2008 @ 1:23 am
To be honest, I assume some of you right
wingers are paid to write these comments,
nobody could believe what you claim to
believe. If you are, get a new line of
work. If you are not paid, go to graduate
school. It must be humiliating for you to
write things that are transparently untrue
and false, which you must know are untrue
and false. Reagan's letter was in response
to Brezhnev's letter, but Reagan's reponse
was what Reagan believed. That why Al Haig
was fired, and George Schultz became Secretary
of State. I was there when much of this
happened, working for the House Democratic
leaders starting in 1983 after Reagan's 1981
letter, but during the period when Reagan
wanted to negotiate with the Soviets before
Gorbachev. I worked directly with high level
people in the Reagan Administration who did
want to negotiate. I am not blogging, posting,
spinning or bs'ing. I was there. Reagan did
indeed want to negotiate. For serious people
here, take a look at the piece I wrote a few
years ago in National Review about Reagan,
Roosevelt, Rushmore. Take a look at the
book by Paul Lettow abut Reagan's views on
nuclear disarmament that dated back to the
1940's and never changed. Take a look at
Richard Reeves' book about Reagan or Lou
Cannon. McCain had it exactly, completely
wrong. I find it amazing that one of the
Republican shills here denies Reagan's letter
when I linked it, in his own handwriting.
Who cares if he was responding to Brezhnev's
letter? Read what Reagan wrote, and it just
amazes me that anyone can so humiliate
himself and professionally degrade himself,
to try to deny what Reagan wrote himself. It
is pathetic. McCain is even more pathetic
because he is running for President and could
be so historically ignorant and uninformed about a matter so important. There have be
some standards of truth, even on a blog, and
for presidential candidates, there have to be
some standards of integrity and fact and far
too often, including case, McCain lacks one
of both. Read what Reagan wrote, because
this is very important stuff for those who
seriously care about the security of America
and aren't writing ignorant nonsense on blogs.
I dont write for them, I write for serious
people, and Reagan wanted very much to
negotiate with Brezhnev and when McCain said
the opposite, he was ignorant and wrong.
Comment by Brent — September 28, 2008 @ 7:11 am
The majority of comments seem to be from folks who had made up their minds prior to the debate.
Here's a comment from someone who had not.
I do appreciate the information regarding Regan, and I admit that I believe we should always go into negotiations without preconditions. There, now that I've gotten that out of the way, here is what I observed of the debate.
Both candidates answered the questions posed to them.
I was troubled at times when Senator Obama seemed he could not wait to respond to Senator McCain making a claim about him that was false but I understood because I too have that problem.
I believe it is a problem he need to learn to control. To not interrupt but prepare for a response.
I was extremely bothered by Senator McCain acting like he was ignoring Senator Obama.
He never once looked directly at Senator Obama. This made him seem as though he felt he were superior to Senator Obama.
I liked the fact that Senator Obama looked at Senator McCain often, especially if he were responding to a comment by the Senator.
I was reminded of the debate between Nixon and JFK because of McCain's inability to face or look at Obama. McCain may not have been sweating profusely, but he looked disengaged and uncomfortable, almost robotic. Obama looked engaged and thoughtful.
That is my personal assessment of the debate, including what stuck with me the most.
As I said, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, but and uncommitted so I thought I'd throw in my appraisal of the debate. Consider it or discard it, but ultimately it is we the uncommitted who will decide this election, not the fervent Democrats or Republicans.
Comment by Phyllis — September 28, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Brent et al,
Why is everyone always arguing the extremes. Obama at one point stated that he would meet with no preconditions. Since then he has backtracked and said obviously there would be "preparations" which amount to preconditions. He made a mistake originally, and McCain wants to hang him on it. Fine. So be it. He should have been more careful when he originally spoke, and I think that speaks to some of the bigger issues Obama has in trying to show himself as different and forward thinking, (similar to the comments he made on Pakistan). I'm pretty sure 95% of people see through the smoke and mirrors and realize that Obama wouldn't call Iran and set the meeting up himself.
As for McCain's position, Brent, you're misstating it just as badly. Same for Bush's. Clearly, there ARE negotiations ongoing…ALWAYS. We negotiate trough other countries, through the UN, and through lower level diplomatic channels. To try and portray our current policy as completely void of discussion with Iran is patently false. Also, to igonre that Obama's "preparations" are essentially the same as the current "preconditions" is also disingenuous. Obama realizes he can't just go forward with discussions unilaterally. At the same time, he now publicly admits that Iran may not "meet" the preparations threshold needed for him to meet. So essentially, McCain is hammering the naive comment that Obama made, but the truth is Obama's true position isn't radically different than Bush's or McCain's.
All this blog is is partisan hacking. You all should do better.
Comment by NIck — September 28, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Too bad the mainstream MEDIA won't report facts like this. Not everybody watches cnn or msnbc or fox.
Comment by Connie Manes — September 28, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
#13 Smilinjack
All you have contributed is name calling other posters. I suppose it is your right - when you have nothing to offer…
I would suggest you admit when you don't know something and do the research… I was always taught to be a critical thinker. I wont disrespect Brent on something I have not researched myself. I always give a person the benefit of the doubt, but then check it out…
My post was honest, and substantive.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 28, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Here are some interesting references from an article at the Heritage Foundation. Reagan did negotiation with the Soviets, but he was dealing from a position of strength. He did it by outsmarting the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. first, then the Soviets. McCain may have been referring to the fact that Reagan did force some reforms on the Soviets in the negotiation stage, but it may be a moot point. There are different interpretations of history, and this article may not have all the facts.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl953.cfm
Reagan also rejected détente. He maintained that the Soviets were using détente as a cover to lull the United States into passivity and self-restraint while they themselves prosecuted the Cold War. He argued that only when the Soviets changed their internal system would the USSR’s threat to the United States be neutralized. Reagan continually emphasized his beliefs that if the United States engaged in and led a strenuous military, economic, and political competition with the USSR, it could exacerbate the weaknesses of the Soviet system, particularly its economic and technological base, and help compel the Soviets both to agree to reductions in nuclear arms and perhaps to begin to change their own system toward greater openness. He made those points publicly time and again as he challenged President Gerald R. Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976 and then as he ran against, and defeated, President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election. Reagan’s advisers during these two presidential campaigns have emphasized that those ideas originated with Reagan.
The outcome of Reagan’s meeting with Gorbachev at Reykjavík in October 1986 has long puzzled journalists and scholars. The transcripts from Reykjavík make clear that the course of the meetings was largely shaped by Reagan’s nuclear abolitionism and his conviction that that goal was close at hand. At the meeting, Gorbachev set out a number of important concessions that suddenly made the U.S. delegation believe that agreements on deep reductions in strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons were possible. After a day and a half of haggling between Reagan and Gorbachev, Reagan proposed that they abolish all nuclear weapons. Gorbachev agreed, and so did Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. They planned to turn over the details of abolition to a team that could prepare a treaty to be signed in Washington. But Gorbachev insisted that SDI must be restricted to the laboratory. Reagan tried to convince Gorbachev of his vision of SDI as the guarantor of a nuclear-free world, but Gorbachev replied that if he agreed to a deal without killing SDI, he “could not go back to Moscow”; he “would be called a dummy and not a leader.” Neither would budge, and there the meeting ended.
Reagan was furious that he had come so close to achieving his goal but that Gorbachev had held nuclear abolition hostage to doing away with SDI. Yet Reagan and his advisers believed that Reykjavik had been a success, because Gorbachev had made a number of concessions that they thought would be difficult for him to retract, and because they felt that Gorbachev, having failed to secure economic relief by curtailing the arms race in offensive and defensive technologies, might look to more systemic changes.
During Reagan’s last two years in office, he and Gorbachev deepened their relationship as the number of issues on the U.S.–Soviet agenda broadened and as Gorbachev undertook a series of steps that began to change Soviet foreign and domestic policy. Reagan, more so than most of his advisers, saw those changes as transformational.
He continued to pursue his goal of nuclear abolition. Reagan’s dream of a nuclear-free world protected by an internationalized missile defense is, of course, unrealized. Yet he and Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty in 1987, which eliminated an entire category of nuclear weapons for the first time, and he laid the foundation for President George H.W. Bush to complete the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The United States and Russia, no longer enemies, have concluded several agreements to make vast cuts in their respective nuclear arsenals. The Soviet Union is no more, the direct threat from Russia to the United States is small, and Russian and U.S. nuclear forces are greatly reduced. Additionally, plans to build an extensive missile defense continue in the United States. The current effort derives from Reagan’s initiative, although the strategic rationale for it has evolved as the strategic environment has changed.
Reagan’s approach to nuclear weapons was specific and singular, and its impact on U.S. policy was substantial.
Paul Lettow is the author of Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (New York: Random House, 2005).
Sign up for Morning Bell Email
Name
Email
Listen to the Experts
Heritage In Focus
Myths About Defense Spending
View Larger Version
Recent Heritage Studies
Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers by Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and James Sherk
August 21, 2008
Russia-Georgia War Highlights Need for Directed-Energy Defenses by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
August 19, 2008
Congressional Commission Should Recommend "Damage Limitation" Strategy by Baker Spring
August 14, 2008
Contact An Expert
MEDIA INFORMATION LINE:
Phone: 202.675.1761
Fax: 202.544.6979
Opinion Editorial Requests:
Paul Gallagher
Manager, Editorial Services
202.608.6151
Paul.Gallagher@heritage.org
Radio/TV Interview Requests:
Matt Streit
Director
202.608.6156
Matt.Streit@heritage.org
Elizabeth F. Lincicome
Senior Media Associate
202.608.6157
Elizabeth.Lincicome@heritage.org
Israel Ortega
Senior Media Associate
202.608.6176
Israel.Ortega@heritage.org
Audrey Jones
Media Associate
202.608.6159
Audrey.Jones@heritage.org
—–
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 28, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
What are "preconditions".
A precondition is a requirement, a necessity, a stipulation that must be fulfilled prior to something occurring.
OK, let's think about this for a minute.
We say to someone with whom we want to have a discussion, we will only talk with you if you do thus and so first!
Their response is, OK, if we have to do that then you have to do thus and so before we will talk.
This becomes a tit for tat prior to any talking or listening to one another.
Would you say to someone you know who had done something to you that upset you, and you wanted to talk with them that you would ONLY talk to them about your disagreement if they were willing to certain preconditions?
I doubt it, and if you did, I doubt you would ever settle your disagreements.
It's not a good way to act in good faith to put one another on the defensive to begin with.
It is always best to go into discussions with open minds willingly listening to each other. If one party attempts to go into a "discussion" with the attitude that they are in the right and the other party is in the WRONG, obviously NO progress can be made. The party that has been made to feel they are in a negative position, obviously will push back attempting to prove the opposite instead of openly listening to the party that has put them in that position.
Judging another from your own set of limited circumstances, being unwilling to listen to another parties point will never accomplish compromise. And ultimately compromise is what is being looked for in negotiations, otherwise it is dictating to the other party the RULES as you see them and not being willing to bend even the slightest, or listen to another parties position. You get stuck and never come to an understanding.
Please do not say that others are not willing to negotiate when in point of fact, it is you who sees negotiation as the "other" bending to YOUR will.
Comment by Phyllis — September 28, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Phyllis, excellent! You will decide on your contribution to the future of this country by who looked at whom. Deep thinking at its finest.
Comment by Igor R. — September 28, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
NIck, great observations! I like your line of thinking: instead of parsing each sentence both candidates utter, look past that and decide what they are likely to accomplish. I wish the debates on the blogs were about the two alternative realities the two would create if elected. Isn't that how we should decide? It is about the future, but given their records and words, discounted for posturing, isn't that all we can do to intelligently pick who is better?
Comment by Igor R. — September 28, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Igor R. If you think insulting people will bring them over to your way of thinking you must indeed have an peculiar perception of reality.
Perhaps in your "reality" negativism and insults on peoples judgments produce a positive response.
Did the beginning of my comments even register with you, that Senator Obama Interrupted Senator McCain and this was bothersome to me?
Again, those of you who are blinded by your own bias' will not bring others on board by calling them names, instead you alienate them and drive them to the "other" side.
I had not/have not made up my mind, but I can tell you that you are certainly pushing me towards Obama.
Thanks for the wake-up as to the attitude of those in the McCain camp. If you want to talk intelligence perhaps you should consider your own.
Comment by Phyllis — September 28, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
BTW, research has shown that when someone is unable or unwilling to look at someone or into their eyes when they speak to them it indicates either untruthfulness, disdain or hatred towards that person. So Senator McCain's actions along with Senator Obama's are indeed important. Not silliness as you suggest Igor.
Just as Nixon's profuse sweating was an indication of him being uncomfortable.
Of course scientific facts shouldn't be taken into consideration.
You seem to be of the mindset, Don't give me stinkin facts. I vote according to what I believe, or WANT to believe. Facts are irrelevant!
Comment by Phyllis — September 28, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
It is obvious that the word 'negotiation' is not in John McCain's vocabulary. Nor is it in his demeanor to be courteous enough to look at his opponent, even when pressed to do so by the debate moderator. We all have witnessed 'McCain's disdain' for Senator Obama.
Comment by Joyce — September 28, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Nick:
"Preparations, preconditions"
or
"Stategy, tactics"
The terminology IS important — It is reflective of the professional level of experience and insight.
I wouldn't be so generous to brush it off as a matter of symantics. It is not that simple. It is a measure of ones qualifications to correctly identify, assess, judge, communicate, plan and implement responsibly.
Obama has been flippant on - when live begins/abortion - w/ his "above his paygrade" response,….
Obama poor judgement with the Economice crisis - "They'll call me if they need me"
In my opinion Obama is a passive observer, not an active leader.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 28, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Anyone who hasn't made up their mind by this point is either a mad man or a rock.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 28, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
JFK-HRC,
You got it exactly right! Barack Hussein has been a passive observer at the Trinity church for 20 years, listening to Rev.Wrong's poison without saying a word in defense of his homeland that gave his anything he could hope for. Now, Barack Hussein plans to become a passive observer in a White House. Should Iran together with Hezbollah & Hamas start a war with Israel, Obama would passively observe and then would join forces with whoever the winner is.
Comment by Misha — September 28, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Igor,
please stop pushing Phyllis towards Obama, we need every vote we can get, even from very sophisticated, independent minded voter and late bloomer like Phyllis.
Comment by MIsha — September 29, 2008 @ 12:32 am
Always remember who has been guiding the course the last 8 years. And anyone who supported it should shut up!
Comment by Aftermath — September 29, 2008 @ 7:39 am
"Anyone who hasn't made up their mind by this point is either a mad man or a rock."
Only someone who is a party faithful would make a statement such as that.
If you truly believe that, then why have debates?
Believe it or not, there are a large number of people who do not make up their minds for certain until AFTER they hear the debates, or until the day before or day of the election.
We weigh everything that is said and done by all candidates, that includes third and fourth party people. We actually LISTEN to and rate what is said, instead of making excuses for gaffes by any candidate. I have voted for third party candidates in the past because I felt neither of the major party candidates was offering anything different. I've also voted against my conscience which told me neither candidate in a major party was what I believed would be BEST for our country but the alternative would be such a disaster that I needed to vote for a major party candidate to make sure the other candidate didn't get elected.
We are a difficult bunch, but we are the bunch that the candidates are playing to during this last 4 week period. Those of us on the fence, or about to vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning.
We are not rocks or mad as you suggest. Simply thoughtful people who want to hear everything that is being offered by all candidates.
Robert, If you believe we are so dense and that you can't change anyone's mind. Why do YOU bother to post such long winded comments?
Just to make yourself feel important?
Comment by Phyllis — September 29, 2008 @ 8:25 am
It's well known that when you look at your opponent in a debate it can make it appear that you are being lectured to, so it's wiser not to look. Obama kept lecturing him, not debating by looking at the audience. John McCain did exactly what he should have done.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 29, 2008 @ 8:45 am
McCain also misspoke about this same time period under Reagan when he claimed that Reagan's SDI [Star Wars program] helped put an end to the Cold War. That is completely not true and in fact nuclear disarmament took much longer because of Star Wars because the Soviets didn't know what they should be doing about a missile defense system in space. So SDI actually prolonged the nuclear race. It really has been a Republican fantasy that hasn't been challenged much by the media that the military buildup during this time between the two countries was what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Everyone who really wants to understand the role of SDI during Reagan needs to read Frances Fitzgerald's book: Way out there in the blue."
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
Comment by rjcrane — September 29, 2008 @ 9:15 am
#35 Misha
Thank you. I wish I didn't have to point it out. But, there are so many people out there that are too busy to stop and analyze because they are just trying to survive.
Maybe Obama needs to join a real church,, Catholic Protestant, Jewish or even Muslim. Anyone who belongs to Black Lib. theology, needs years of deprogramming. Obama has a future in Politics, but he needs to pay his dues and learn the ropes. We want a leader who will take problems head on and be sure of himself. The essense of the good work of a man is in the small details. The time and the pride he takes in doing it right. The proof is in his track record.
McCain possesses that authority. Palin possesses executive authority.
#39 Robert R
Thanks for all the research on Reagan - He was a winning person and kept the peace, but never forgot the threat of Nukes. Columbia University had Akmadenijad speak a year or two ago at the very time our allies were being verbally threatened by that man… it seems that the Liberal educators are playing in dangerous territory. I would love to see Obama speaking in one of Irans universities, while threatening their allies.. Ha!
I hope and pray for world peace. I think it take a little more than campaign promises. Thanks again RR !
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am
"It's well known that when you look at your opponent in a debate it can make it appear that you are being lectured to, so it's wiser not to look."
Well known where?
Oh, I forgot, science is fact not personal beliefs.
OK, I've made up my mind.
Instead of voting for a third party candidate because I was not happy with Obama's stances on a number of issues that I believe are important.
I will vote for Obama.
I believe scientific studies and find that Senator Mccain is being and has been untruthful and not knowledgeable enough to be President.
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php
"The following techniques to telling if someone is lying are often used by police, and security experts.
• Physical expression will be limited and stiff, with few arm and hand movements. Hand, arm and leg movement are toward their own body the liar takes up less space.
• A person who is lying to you will avoid making eye contact."
Guess the police and security people use these criteria for no reason.
Please don't insult me by claiming McCain was making eye contact with me instead of Obama. He was looking into a CAMERA, he wouldn't even look at the moderator.
A CAMERA is NOT a Person or a Person's eyes!
Perhaps they should talk to you.
Comment by Phyllis — September 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Phyllis: By your own definition Obama was trying to make eye contact with McCain, not the audience, so you're telling us he was lying to the audience? Thanks for the info. I would have never figured that out. As far as your comment about not moving his arms, they are injured as a result of his treatment as a POW. That's a pretty ignorant comment.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 29, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Just contacted a number of friends of mine who have been trying for months to convince me not to vote third party to let them know that I was going to vote for Obama.
They were curious as to why.
Ultimately it boiled down to a few things.
1. I care enough about my country to want the best possible person as President.
2. I know that my voting for a third party candidate may feed me personally more than voting for someone with whom I have some major difference of opinion, but if I feel the person would be better for the country than the alternative I need to put my personal feelings aside and vote for that person.
3. They never once tried to say I was stupid for not thinking like they. Instead, they tried to convince me that perhaps I was expecting too much of one person but that they respected my right to differ with them.
4. After viewing the debate and listening to and watching both candidates with an open mind, I decided I had to vote for someone that I thought might HEAL the giant rift that has formed in our country.
I know this is a lot to ask of anyone, but I was uncomfortable with Senator McCain's demeanor and am more uncomfortable with his running mates lack of knowledge and experience.
I was what is known as a Lincoln Republican prior to becoming unaffiliated. I even served as an elected Republican.
BTW Robert, it isn't MY definition. I provided the site where I found the facts and put quotations around that which I took from the site.
Again, FACTS are not your strong suit.
Comment by Phyllis — September 29, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
#44 Phyllis
I respect you have the right to your own opinion. May I just point out that Palin is a more qualified and experience executive than Obama, (who has spent his career running for one office after another), he has virtually little decision making track record. McCain and Palin employed not only decision-making, but has stuck their necks out in unpopular territory to make right the wrongs they witnessed in government, making their voices heard loud and clear. This is an example of his strength and courage… Palin and McCain are two o a kind.
The "You're lookin' at me" scenario is all cornflakes… Look at their spines, their guts, their personal sacrifices, their proven abilities. How many times would average people made those sacrifices?
Obama does not believe in partisanship… even with his own party.
Obama voted present 139 times… He wants to be liked.
Phyllis sometimes the doctor has to create a little discomfort to help heal the patient. It takes courage to do some surgeries that the majority of other docs would avoid… McCain & Palin have that courage…
God Bless.
.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 29, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Phyllis, or whoever you are.
You were going to vote Osama anyhow, spare us your inner struggle and all these theatrics about contacting friends. How many of you call your friends to announce your voting preference for President? If you do, do your friends tell you to go to hell? Normal people would.
Vote for this citizen of the world and let the "healing" begin, but please try to develop your open mind a little further and not let it rust during the healing process while we all hold hands.
You served as "Lincoln Republican"? You mean the conservative giants like Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chafee? Please, when did "Lincoln Republicans" ever won anything?
I knew that with strong, non-diplomatic statements and opinions from Igor and Robert, we'd lose Phyllis precious vote, but the hell with him.
Comment by Misha — September 29, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Phyllis, I've read more books on body language than the number of debates you've seen. Frankly, I don't care who the hell you vote for. It is well known that a certain percentage of the population can mask the common "tells" that otherwise betray lies: these are the top actors and politicians, as well as your everyday pathological liars. If you can't figure out that suffering for your country while captured by the enemy and being tortured, and refusing to leave your comrades behinds is a better testament to character than doing whatever body language impersonations your debating coach has taught you, then you're not fit to vote in the first place.
Comment by Igor R. — September 29, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
LOL! Look at the right-wingers trying to beat up swing-voter Phyllis because she hasn't reached the same conclusion as they have.
"Stop sharing the theatrics."
"Do your friends tell you to go to hell?"
"I don't care who the hell you vote for."
"That's a pretty ignorant comment."
What's up with all the venom, guys? Her view is entirely consistent with what post-debate polls have revealed. LOL
Comment by Melissa — September 29, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Melissa, your Obama is rather repugnant individual. Thus, the venom is spewed towards those voting for Obama, but it's actually directed at Obama. Nothing personal.
Comment by Misha — September 29, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Melissa, since I'm not in fact paid by the RNC, I don't have to be sensitive to idiots. My attitude to her has nothing to do with her political orientation. I find it repugnant that it's considered acceptable for anyone above the age of fifteen to talk about how they make decisions about politics by who looks into who's eyes. This is not a frigging "Romeo and Juliet", this is about whether a flawed war hero or a Marxist terrorist associate will lead the country.
Comment by Igor R. — September 29, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
It's also tragi-comical that the "Lincoln Republican" will use this test
"• Physical expression will be limited and stiff, with few arm and hand movements. Hand, arm and leg movement are toward their own body the liar takes up less space."
for a guy whose arms and fingers were broken when he was thrown out of an airplane trying to defend his country, and subsequently tortured for five years. He can't comb his own hair or put on a jacket, but the "Lincoln Republican" here expects him to behave like Father Guido Sarducci on meth just to prove to her he is not a liar.
Comment by Igor R. — September 29, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
#50 Methinks the Igor doth protest too much.
I recall one or two posters here (not mentioning any names, of course) suggesting they wouldn't vote for someone whose middle name is Hussein and/or falsely claiming Obama is a Muslim and therefore unqualified and/or falsely implying that a lawsuit against Obama claiming he wasn't a natural-born citizen must mean there's something to him not being a natural-born citizen. Did you call them out on those remarks as shallow and repugnant? Maybe I missed it?
Comment by Melissa — September 29, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
I still say Obama will be our next president. The rantings of some of the commentaries on this posting are verbose, boring, and so ridiculous, they are even amusing.
Comment by Joyce — September 29, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
JFK-HRC ,
You couldn't be more wrong. Iran doesn't want to "annialiate" the US and in fact, top Pentagon officials have been begging for us to sit down with Iran. Thomas Barnett is just one of them. You have "not got a clue."
Comment by Kevin — October 10, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
#55 Kevin.
Hope you are right. But that Akmadenajad…
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 11, 2008 @ 9:21 am