From a post at today’s Miami Herald’s Naked Politics Blog:

One of John McCain’s fellow POW’s in Vietnam defended the war in Iraq, saying, “The Muslims have said either we kneel or they’re going to kill us.”

In a phone call with reporters arranged by the McCain campaign, Colonel Bud Day added: “I don’t intend to kneel and I don’t advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn’t advocate to anybody that we kneel.”

Muslim leaders have complained that they have been villified as terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Day, who lives in Pensacola, was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that smeared former Democratic nominee John Kerry’s war record in 2004.

Day’s words are exactly the kind of thinking that puts our nation’s security in greater peril.

The statement paints Muslims unfairly with a broad brush, to say the least. Day should clarify that those statements come from Muslim terrorists & extremists, & not all Muslims. I will give John McCain the benefit of the doubt that this is not the way he views this struggle; but there is no question that many Americans who vote for him in November have this mindset.

Part of winning the struggle against terrorism is convincing the vast moderate Muslim world that it’s in their best interest to be on our side. We can not prevail without their support. & therefore it is your duty as an American to discourage this kind of thinking, which pushes Muslim moderates away from us.

Again — this kind of talk only makes us less safe.

UPDATE: The McCain camp refuses to disavow the statement.

We have shown you earlier on this blog how McCain does such a deft job of handling protesters at his campaign events .. so it’s a shame that the rest of his campaign doesn’t get it.

Watch the clip above to see a 61 year old woman waiting to get into a McCain rally in Denver yesterday get kicked out of line by the secret service & escorted off the (public) property by police for “trespassing.” Her crime? An admittedly crude sign that says “McCain = Bush.”

Goodness gracious, folks. John McCain’s campaign staff should not be afraid of dissent. Democracy’s a messy thing. You’d score far more points by letting this kind of thing go on - it shows that you’re able to take it. The alternative (see: the last 7 years of carefully hand-picked crowds at all events) looks, well, like something else.

& rest assured if we see this kind of behavior at an Obama event we’ll call his campaign out on it too.

Again: Democracy’s a messy thing. Embrace disorder & become stronger by doing so.

What do you think?

Okay, count Wes Clark off the list of potential Obama Vice Presidential candidates. Fast-forward to about 1:30 into this interview, where you’ll hear him say of McCain “I don’t think getting your plane shot down is a qualification for President of the United States.”

I’ve had enough of this from both parties. This whole “that’s not enough,” “he’s not qualified” folderol gets us nowhere in solving the nation’s problems. As far as I’m concerned, the moment a person swears an oath to defend this country at the risk of their own life, they are automatically qualified to be President.

But that’s a qualification, not a requirement. That’s what’s great about this country, & why someone who chooses not to serve deserves an equal shot.

Both candidates are qualified to be president. Let’s start talking about where they want to take the country, not whether they’re up to the job. The primaries settled that question.

Barack Obama should repudiate the comments Clark made above as soon as is possible, and refrain from having Clark be his advocate in the future.

UPDATE: Obama addressed the issue in his speech on patriotism in Independence, Missouri (of which more later) thusly:

“For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary.

And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.“

UPDATE #2: McCain addresses the issue today in Pennsylvania at a news conference:

WTVC General Manager Mike Costa writes a regular blog at NewsChannel9.com called ‘the Torch.’

His latest thoughts are on the presidential race, & we’re going to reprint them here:

As the general election begins, we will hear much about how this candidate will help us with the mortgage mess, how that candidate will work to lower gas prices and how this one can help us more than the other. The truth is no one president can have that kind of effect on the economy and our everyday life.

What our next president can do is be a leader. While we may not agree with the position he takes on every issue, we will respond to reasoned, inspired leadership that asks each of us to be the best we can be. For too long now — the sixteen years of Clinton and Bush — we have had leadership replaced with political opportunism.

In choosing our next president, let’s put the greatest value on the person who pursues solutions, not political victories. Which candidate can inspire us, not make excuses for us? We need someone who will champion a cause because it is the right thing to do, not because it is popular. It is time to have a president we are proud of whether we agree with him or not on each issue.

I watched a story on 60 Minutes last night saying the residents of Denmark are consistently the happiest people on earth. [Vote08 note: here’s the story:]

As they interviewed some of their citizens who had also lived in the USA, they asked the difference in the two countries. It came down to this. The Danes have low expectations for themselves so they are seldom disappointed. These happy folks said in the US people should’n't expect the American Dream. It is too unrealistic and they just end up unhappy.

I say BUNK! Lower our expectations? No, it is time to reignite all of the possibilities that we as a country and as individual Americans represent. We need a leader who speaks to that aspiration in all of us.

Examine the candidates and choose the one who you think can best lead us in the years to come — not the one who promises to fix your sub-prime mortgage or the one who says he can get gas prices under $3 per gallon. We cannot cede our responsibilities to governmental bureaucracies and think that is how we can be our best.

At the risk of sounding the sycophant, I agree completely with Mike.

What do you think?

The above button was actually on sale at the GOP convention in Texas over the weekend.

Now, one could use this to characterize all Republicans as racist, covert if not overt, when you & I both know that’s not anywhere close to being the case.

& just as people should not overgeneralize about Republicans, Democrats, or even Christians, they also should consider the world of Islam in the same way, as we said here earlier today.

The world is not black & white - it is filled with shades of gray. No matter what your party affiliation or beliefs, you become a better citizen when you try to view things happening in the world from perspectives that aren’t necessarily your own. & doing this doesn’t mean your core beliefs about the world have to change. Doing so doesn’t make you weaker, it makes you stronger.

UPDATE: See? Here’s what I’m talking about. The Texas GOP has disowned the vendor of the above button & is donating the money it made to charity, saying “We will not tolerate nor profit from bigotry.”

Yesterday in a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

The dissenters, including Justice Antonin Scalia, were quite vituperative. Scalia went so far as to say that “more Americans will die because of this ruling.” President Bush, from Europe, also said he sided with the dissenters.

Let’s hope that’s not the case. But let’s also celebrate the apparent return of the ideals that have made this country the greatest in the world.

There are two kinds of power: hard power & soft power.

We have seen examples of the former in droves for the past 8 years. We are in desperate need of a return to “soft power,” which is akin to leading by example.

We should not be afraid of our American way of life as spelled out in the Constitution. I have always been under the impression that those who would lock up terrorist suspects & throw away the key are doing the American image considerable damage abroad.

Yes, trying terror suspects under our U.S. court system will be messy - justice always is. But for more than two centuries we have handled “the worst of the worst” in our jail system & there is no reason that can’t be the same for these suspects.

The alternative, keeping them indefinitely detained, denying them the chance to see the evidence against them (again - a right spelled out in the Constitution), or not allowing them to have legal representation, presents the United States as a hypocrite.

Colin Powell had a great line on Meet the Press about habeas corpus in the last couple of years with which we heartily agree:

“The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system.”

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson nails our view on the matter, read it here.

Hugh Hewitt encapsulates the opposing view, calling it “an astonishingly dangerous decision.”

If we suffer because we stick to our long tradition of adhering to the inalienable rights of human beings - even those who aren’t citizens of our country - we will not only make our country stronger, we will also achieve a “soft” victory that would actually reduce the number of terrorists in the world.

That’s our take … what’s yours?

Gary Poole of Athens, TN writes:

“It is one thing for an enemy to kill our soldiers. Although I do not like it in the least, I can respect the man who did it and the his courage. It is quite another thing for an enemy to kill innocent civilians. I have no respect for them or their lack of courage. As far as I am concerned, when they joined a conspiracy to kill non combatant women and children, they lost all legal rights in our judicial system. I will agree that we need to do away with the detainee camps at Guantanamo…execute all the detainees and let Allah have them.”

Thanks for commenting, Gary! Here’s my question for you, though: in what way do you determine beyond a doubt that a suspect in custody “joined a conspiracy to kill non-combatant women & children?” How do you do this without a court hearing? Who is the person who decides a person’s guilt or innocence (& if guilt, decides if that guilt warrants death?) That’s the problem right now - we have no way of making the leap from terrorist suspect.. to proven terrorist. Some of the suspects held at Guantanamo have been proven to be completely innocent of charges - they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Should these people be executed, too? If you say yes, how can you call that justice?

Mr. Poole responded later in the day to me via e-mail:

 ”Lieutenant Calley from the Vietnam era comes to mind.  I wonder if he had the time to be that analytical as to what the proper response should be while his platoon was taking the majority of fire coming at his platoon from the rear, from the village he was supposed to be defending?  Which was the higher obligation…the rights of the villagers or the lives of his men?  I am not trying to be cute,  all I am saying is that the man wearing the uniform and carrying the rifle looks at it a little differently than a courtroom lawyer or judge acting with months/years of hindsight.  For the vast majority of situations, I am in complete agreement with you but I am of a completely different mindset when it comes to someone trying to destroy my country.  Like the old English toast”To Great Britain… and to hell with her enemies”"

Now it’s your turn! What do you think?

& so it continues.

Today on the Today show Matt Lauer asked John McCain if he had a better estimate on when American troops might be coming home from Iraq. McCain delivered a less-than-artful answer (see above):

NBC’S MATT LAUER: “If it’s working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”

SEN. MCCAIN: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq, Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. That way, they will be safe, and serve our country and come home with honor and victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama’s proposal would have done. I’m proud of them. And they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding and it’s fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn’t realize that.”

What’s his point? It’s not that “bringing troops home from Iraq are not important to him.” It’s that they aren’t as important to him as the casualty levels in Iraq in determining success there.

Nevertheless, the Obama campaign apparently could not resist the bait McCain dangled in front of their eyes.

On a conference call, 2004 Dem nominee John Kerry said “It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistent with the needs of Americans and particularly the families of troops who are over there. To them it’s the most important thing in the world when they come home,” he said. “It’s a policy for staying in Iraq.” & Obama adviser Susan Rice said “This is yet one further indication of his striking lack of appreciation of the burden Iraq is putting on our military.”

In response, a McCain spokesman said “Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would… reject the Obama campaign’s attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth.”

One could imagine the ads that will air during the fall regarding this quip.. & a quick YouTube search already turned up one:

ENOUGH, ALREADY. Look, there are plenty of ways to criticize John McCain on how he views Iraq, just as there are an equal number of ways Barack Obama is open to criticism for his policy. But let’s let these debates be of substance! Not debates that are centered around “gotcha” & “can you believe he said that.”

We have said before that you owe it to yourself to pay close attention this year - it’s a year that’s important like no other. & part of what’s asked of you is that you pay close attention to context in all of these types of exchanges. It does the American people a disservice to take a perceived “gaffe” & run with it, giving the impression that a candidate would actually consciously say something that stupid. This happened on the other side with Obama’s “bitter” remark. In both cases, the candidate should not have made such a stupid/inartful statement. But their opponents went way too far in exploiting the opening. What’s revealed (for both sides) is an implicit cynicism that the American people won’t actually do their homework. Please, American voter, prove them wrong this year.

Please join me in calling for more attention paid to nuance in this campaign. This country sure could use it. If that makes us out to be a Don Quixote chasing after a phantom windmill, so be it.

Here is John McCain’s Memorial Day speech.

Here is Hillary Clinton’s Memorial Day speech.

Here is Barack Obama’s Memorial Day speech.

May God bless & keep the souls of those who gave their lives for this country.

Late Friday Hillary Clinton quite uncouthly invoked Robert Kennedy’s June 1968 assassination as a reason why she’s staying in the race:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,”

How charming. Read more about it here. She quickly apologized for making the statement, but not before the Obama campaign denounced her words:

“Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Then, she (finally) apologized:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation - particularly for that family - was in any way offensive,” Clinton continued. “I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York. And have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.”

BUT —

Clinton’s statement stands in contrast to the initial reation from the Clinton camp. “She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate,” responded Clinton campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee.

Sheesh.

You know what this tells me, that she wouldn’t think twice about invoking the RFK assassination as a means to argue her case the very week that Ted Kennedy learns he has a brain tumor? It tells me that we can all thank our lucky stars she doesn’t have a reasonable shot at being our president. It is clear what is most important in her mind, & tact isn’t part of it at all.

If you’re reading this & are a Hillary fan, I’d love to hear why you think I’m wrong.

Hillary obits are a dime a dozen these days. But take the time to read this one, as it’s the real reason she’s lost the nomination:

“Yes, the obituary will (correctly) list several causes of fatality, particularly the decision ofher campaign strategists to essentially ignore a string of ten contests between Feb. 9 and 19 to Barack Obama. In that 11-day stretch, Obama scored one landslide triumph after another, amassing the bulk of the popular-vote and pledged-delegate lead that Clinton spent the spring chasing in vain. Had Clinton not won Ohio on March 4, her campaign would have ended on the spot. As it was, the damage from her mid-February slide has, in the end, proven insurmountable.”

Again, the whole column’s worth reading.

Have a great weekend. Check back for new posts on Memorial Day - we’ll be here!

The two candidates pictured above both have recently called for a suspension of the federal gas tax between this Memorial Day & Labor Day, & have both blasted Barack Obama, who opposes it.

No one likes high gas prices. But pandering to the base, immediate needs of the voters represents a “quick fix” style solution designed to get votes rather than address a long-term problem.

Each of the three candidates have promised to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

• Here’s Barack Obama’s plan
• Here’s Hillary Clinton’s plan
• Here’s John McCain’s plan

Each of these arguments have merits. For starters, each represent a break from the current system which is running on inertia. & look where that’s gotten us.

There are two ways to approach fixing the gas price problem: reducing demand, & increasing supply.

Dropping the federal gas tax for this summer would do neither of these; it would increase demand - presumably because the price would be better - & decrease supply, as more people use gas.

& it really wouldn’t make that much of an impact in your wallet, anyway, as this clip from Good Morning America illustrates:

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times fleshes out that point in his column today.

& lest you think that opposition to the idea sticks with just one ideology, check out the wealth of economists - including a former economic adviser to President Bush - who say it’s a cheap gimmick designed to get votes.

Personally I’m more than happy to pay the tax - provided that tax is going towards figuring out a long-term solution to the problem. I am tired & extremely frustrated at politicians in Washington - of both parties - refusing to look beyond the next week, the next month, the next year, or, most importantly, the next election.

This 2008 presidential campaign, as we’ve said before, is not an easy one. It’s awfully hard. You as a voter have a responsibility to look past your immediate concerns & try to envision how to plan for 20, 30, 50 years down the road. Changing how we view our dependence on foreign oil is just one part of this.

So we urge you to reject any politician’s plan to give you a “quick fix” in the short term while ignoring the long term issues that are at stake for our economic (& literal) survival.

What do you think?

One of the major failings of the Bush administration since September 11th, 2001 has been the lack of any kind of call for national sacrifice (& no, we’re not counting the call from the President to “go shopping“).

After the jump, we offer some thoughts on how the next president needs to change this.. even though we have evidence they’ve given no indication they’ll do so. 

(more…)

[Hard to ignore a segue like this one after the Elton John post.]

In an interview with the gay magazine ‘the Advocate,’ Barack Obama says if elected he would repeal the military’s current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, it requires the military to not ask if any service member is homosexual, but also mandates that any person who reveals themself to be so be immediately discharged.

Find out what Obama had to say — & get our take on the thing, too — after the jump.

(more…)

continues to take a look at some hard truths about Iraq that folks on both sides of the debate need to realize.

The always-readable George Packer of the New Yorker has a great piece in the winter 2008 issue of the World Affairs Journal. The entire thing is worth a read, but here I want to highlight some of the points he makes that are worthy of applying to how we approach this upcoming presidential campaign, both in terms of how to think about the Iraq question & how we need to change our approach for many other issues.

Packer has been to Iraq many times in the past five years, & he is definitely a critic of the way the U.S. rushed into war:

“Iraq’s remoteness…derives from the politics of the war, and from the political culture of contemporary America at war. The fighting only ever affected a tiny fraction of the public directly. The administration, which never leveled with the country about the potential costs and risks of the enterprise beforehand, tried to keep the war quiet by declaring victory prematurely, refusing to allow pictures of flag-draped caskets arriving at Dover Air Force Base, keeping silent when large numbers of soldiers were killed. The all-volunteer military bought the administration a year or two of goodwill before public opinion began to turn. The façade collapsed when the nation began to realize, around the time New Orleans was under water, that the war was going badly. There was no reason to follow the president into the mouth of hell, and public support, which had always been thin, disintegrated lmost overnight.

But he also has some very critical points to make for those who would turn their backs on any issue this war has created simply because of their initial opposition to it:

“The administration’s deceptions, exaggerations, and always-evolving rationales provoked a counter-narrative that mirrored the White House version of the war in its simple-mindedness: the war was about nothing (except greed, empire, and blind folly). Once, after a trip to Iraq, I attended a dinner party in Los Angeles at which most of the other guests were movie types. They wanted to know what it was like “over there.” I began to describe a Shiite doctor I’d gotten to know, who felt torn between gratitude and fear that occupation and chaos were making Iraq less Islamic. A burst of invective interrupted my sketch: none of it mattered-the only thing that mattered was this immoral, criminal war. The guests had no interest in hearing what it was like over there. They already knew.”

& these entrenched positions on both sides only made matters worse:

“So the lines were drawn from the start. To the pro-war side, criticism was animated by partisanship and defeatism, if not treason. This view, amplified on cable news, talk radio, and right-wing blogs, was tacitly encouraged by the White House. It kept a disastrous defense secretary in office long after it was obvious that he was losing the war, ensured that no senior officer was held accountable for military setbacks, and contributed to the repetition of disastrous errors by the war’s political architects. Meanwhile, the fact that the best and brightest Iraqis were being slaughtered by a ruthless insurgency never aroused much interest or sympathy among the war’s opponents. The kind of people who would ordinarily inspire solidarity campaigns among Western progressives-trade unionists, journalists, human rights advocates, women’s rights activists, independent politicians, doctors, professors-were being systematically exterminated. But since the war shouldn’t have been fought in the first place, what began badly must also end badly. “

Again, the entire article is worth your time, but I link it today to make a point I’ve made before:

America, its people & its policies are not black & white. We all would improve our country immensely if we saw the world as it truly is, in shades of gray. 

• If you have supported this war from the start, you need to face the fact that this was one of the worst thought out endeavors in American history, & you should realize that rigidly toeing the party line has actually ultimately hurt its cause.
• If you have opposed the war from the start, you need to face the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, can return Iraq to what it was under Saddam Hussein, & you should recognize that in many ways this has been good for the long term future of the Iraqi people.

The surge is a perfect example of this “shades-of-gray” mentality. We should be thankful that the military has finally - far too late to be most effective, but finally - figured out that the battlefield is not one of territory, but in the minds of the Iraqi people. However, this past week’s violence has shown that it can only get us so far in achieving victory. More needs to be done.

This isn’t just about Iraq, though. It’s important in this crucial election year that you be willing to listen to what you may consider “the other side.” Being entrenched into one single ideology, being willfully ignorant of that ideology’s potential downsides, will lead our great nation on the path to ruin.

“The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year. The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide. The four soldiers with Multi-National Division - Baghdad were on a patrol when their vehicle was struck at about 10 p.m. Sunday in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military said. Another soldier was wounded in the attack - less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the conflict.”

Again, hopes you are paying attention to Iraq, even though the economy is taking center stage.

Last Friday, liberal columnist Mark Shields & conservative columnist David Brooks discussed the 5-year anniversary of the war, & both encapsulated my feelings on the war perfectly by saying this:

JIM LEHRER [no relation]: Finally, your thoughts, five years of the Iraq war, what are you thinking about right now, David…

DAVID BROOKS: Well…

JIM LEHRER: … about the war and the rest? What needs to be said about it? Let’s put it that way.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it’s been a searing experience for the country and for a lot of us. I would say it’s changed my view of the world quite dramatically, as I look back. And I think what I knew but didn’t practice was the sense that societies are complex, organic organism, more complex than we can possibly understand. And if you’re going to intervene…

JIM LEHRER: You mean other societies than our own?

DAVID BROOKS: Ours, too. Ours, too.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, OK.

DAVID BROOKS: And if you’re going to intervene in a society, you have to respect the complexity and respect your own ignorance of that complexity. And that’s something every conservative should really know, but sometimes those facts were held in abeyance in the enthusiasm of the moment.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: We know, Jim, we went to war against a country that had never attacked us, that never threatened us, on the bogus claim that that country had weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to us.

And it was not a moral war, and it was not a just war. It was a war in which the United States sullied, stained and repealed one of the great American values, that is that, in wartime, war demands equality of sacrifice.

All the sacrifice in this war has been borne by the 1 percent of Americans who are in uniform and their families. The rest of us have been quietly by, especially those of us who opposed the war, and been moral defectors.

We haven’t protested the fact that this is a war that our children and grandchildren will pay for. We haven’t even — we’ve blithely accepted tax cuts, and no draft, and no burden, paid no price, bore no burden, and accepted leadership that demanded nothing of us, and we’ve demanded nothing of them.

JIM LEHRER: David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I do think that desire to sacrifice is hanging out there. It’s still an unmet need in the body politic. There are still thousands of young people, people of all ages, who want to do some sort of service. And for the next president, that will be something to pick up, not to draft them. We’re not going to have a draft. But to increase national service is something McCain has talked about, Obama, Clinton. They’ve all talked about it. And I think it will emotionally help heal some of the unwanted desire to actually rally together after 9/11.

God bless & keep the souls of the (now 4000) fallen in Iraq. May whomever becomes their leader on January 20th, 2009 better understand how to support them, & realize that the nation is willing to be asked more of it to help see this conflict to victory.

Later today on NewsChannel 9 at 5:30, we’ll talk with an Iraqi refugee who has called Murray County, Georgia home. Despite promises to welcome Iraqi refugees with open arms, the U.S. has accepted them at a frustratingly low pace. 

The A.P.’s running a story about Ron Paul indicating he may drop out of the race soon:

WASHINGTON - GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is hinting to supporters that he is ending his long-shot campaign for the presidency. The Texas Republican congressman addressed supporters in a 7 1/2-minute video on his campaign Web site Thursday night and did not specifically say he was quitting the race. He said that although victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race, many victories have been achieved due to the hard work and enthusiasm of his supporters. He said that he hoped that one day he and his supporters could look back and say his campaign was a significant first step that signaled a change in direction for the country. Paul said their job now was to plan for the next phase of their effort.

Watch the entire 7-1/2 minute clip & decide for yourself after the jump! (NOW UPDATED with Ron Paul supporter reaction)

(more…)

The Tennessee Republican party has drawn flack for a press release it issued earlier this week making repeated use of Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

The release ostensibly questioned Obama’s commitment to the survival of Israel, a question Obama answered in Tuesday’s debate:

This answer makes Wednesday’s brouhaha all the more questionable. The Tennessee GOP went ahead & released the charge, despite the fact that the candidate seemed to answer most of the questions about his commitment to Israel & his credits to American Jews who have helped him on his campaign.

With that arrow taken out of the quiver, what remains is the releases repeated use of the candidate’s full name, including Hussein. The photo accompanying the release also makes the implication that Obama is some sort of “secret terrorist.”

Later in the day the TN GOP defended the release and the use of the name, saying “Richard Nixon often went by Richard Milhouse Nixon, and Hillary Clinton often went by Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Again, this was all on the same day that presumptive GOP nominee John McCain repudiated similar comments made by a right-wing radio talk show host in Illinois made on the stage where McCain was about to appear. (hear more of that part of the story here & hear the criticism that host, Bill Cunningham, received from his own side of the aisle here).

McCain showed some much-needed leadership in criticizing the Tennessee GOP for the release:

“If I am the nominee of the party, I will obviously assure that everyone within my party knows that this has got to be a respectful debate.”

But it was Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander who gets the most credit for playing the adult here. He personally asked the TN GOP to remove the picture & reference to “Hussein” from the website.

Obama has no reason to be ashamed of his name. It happens to be one of the most common names in the Muslim world, but that in no way reflects on whether or not he’s a Muslim.

Republicans, you have every reason to have hope that your side will win this year. Trying to tie Obama’s middle name to radical Islamic extremism only hurts your cause. If Republicans win this year, it will be on the issues, & not using tactics like these.

Don’t take my word for it; take Karl Rove’s, as reported by the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder:

No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama’s middle name.

At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, “Sen. Obama.”

“The context was, you’re not going to stigmatize this guy. You shouldn’t underestimate him,” one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of “Barack Hussein Obama” would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.

& please don’t think this post is an attempt by Vote08 to promote one side or the other. This message should be heard by both parties. Liberals who thought they were promoting Democratic causes late last year actually hurt their cause when they published the “General Petraeus-Betray-Us ” ad in the New York Times. Frankly, Petraeus, not Vladimir Putin, deserved to be named Time’s Man of the Year this past year for what he has done to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq (& far more importantly, how he has successfully changed the mindset of those who are prosecuting that war).

Vote08 is in favor of civil discourse between both sides. We can have a presidential contest without stooping to this level.

Late this afternoon, the Tennessee Republican party issued a press release about some GOP state lawmaker’s long term health care plan, & how it contrasts with the one touted by (Democratic) Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen. Bredesen’s middle name, Norman, was omitted.