John McCain, travel agent

July 14, 2008

For quite a while, John McCain had a talking point he really enjoyed: “You know what Barack Obama really should do? He should go to Iraq and see the war first-hand.”

This touched off a debate about, well, I’m not quite sure what the debate was about. Apparently, McCain and the RNC wanted voters to believe only those who’ve made regular trips to the Green Zone are qualified to speak on conditions in Iraq.

When the Obama campaign noted that Obama has had an overseas trip planned for quite some time, and would visit Iraq soon, McCain decided this wasn’t good enough after all.

The McCain campaign, which spent weeks beating up on Barack Obama for not visiting Iraq, is now moving to put a negative spin in advance on his planned trip to that country, which Obama has announced he’ll undertake before the election.

Camp McCain’s argument: What good is an Iraq trip if Obama has already made up his mind on what to do there as president anyway?

Indeed, yesterday, McCain campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds told the NYT, “If Barack Obama believes that visiting Iraq and meeting with commanders will not give him any new perspective, then we can only assume he’s going just to smile for the cameras.”

Fascinating. As far as the McCain campaign is concerned, Obama’s trip to Iraq only “counts” if Obama visits Baghdad and endorses McCain’s position on the war.

In other words, there are three possible scenarios here:

1. Obama doesn’t visit Iraq. This would draw criticism from McCain, because, apparently, going to Iraq is important.

2. Obama visits Iraq, and gains information he’ll use to help shape a withdrawal policy. This would draw criticism from McCain, because Obama is supposed to visit Iraq and change his mind.

3. Obama visits Iraq, and completely abandons his opposition to the Bush/McCain policy. This would draw criticism from McCain, because Obama would be inconsistent.

And now that Obama is going with Choice #2, McCain has a new talking point: “You know what Barack Obama really should do? He should go to South America.”

Seriously.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has hectored Democratic rival Barack Obama to visit Iraq, now says Obama should go to South America as well.

McCain, an Arizona senator, is to make the case in a speech on Monday in San Diego to the National Council of La Raza, one of the most important advocacy groups in the United States for Hispanic Americans.

McCain, who needs support from Hispanic Americans in his battle against Obama in the November 4 presidential election, will tell the group about his support for a stalled free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia and a hemispheric trade pact.

“And while it is surely not my intention to become my opponent’s scheduler, I hope Sen. Obama soon visits some of the other countries of the Americas for the first time,” McCain is to say, according to excerpts released by his campaign. “Were he to do so, I think he, too, would see that stronger economic bonds with our neighbors and the closer friendships they encourage, are a great benefit in many ways to our country.”

This, of course, would lead to three possible scenarios:

1. Obama doesn’t visit South America. This would draw criticism from McCain, because, apparently, going to South America is important.

2. Obama visits South America, and gains information he’ll use to help shape his trade policy. This would draw criticism from McCain, because Obama is supposed to visit South America and change his mind.

3. Obama visits South America, and completely abandons his opposition to the Bush/McCain trade policy. This would draw criticism from McCain, because Obama would be inconsistent.

Note to McCain: Obama doesn’t need a travel agent. These constant recommendations are getting a little insipid.

Maybe McCain should go back to the market he visited before, only without the marine battallion and helicopters, and report on how it looks nowadays.

Note to media: Dog and Pony shows are fake, you suck, and most of us know both of those things.

  • I think what scares McSame is that when Obama visits Iraq, it will be compared to his own trip there. The last thing his campaign needs a rerun of his flak-jacketed stroll through Baghdad. It was Dukakis without the tank.

  • Perhaps John McCain should travel back to the Senate and occasionally show up for his “day” job ,

  • The perfect reply from Obama right would be:

    “Senator McCain should visit Washington, DC. Specifically, Senator McCain should visit the United States Senate. And while it is surely not my intention to become my opponent’s scheduler, I hope Sen. Obama soon visits some of the other points of interest there His office, perhaps; that collection of rooms with his name on the door. Or maybe even the Senate floor, where he has earned a reputation for missing more work than anyone else. Were he to do so, I think he, too, would see that critical issues faced by our citizens and taxpayers are a severe threat in many ways to our country.”

  • Racer X said:
    Maybe McCain should go back to the market he visited before, only without the marine battallion and helicopters, and report on how it looks nowadays.

    I don’t know why Obama surrogates don’t mention that pointless photo op and the stupid things McCain said about it every time McCain talks about “going to Iraq”.
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10380.html

    We all know the corporate-controlled media has buried the story and hopes it will be forgotten.

  • What I found quite surprising is Obama has besides for a stopover in London never been to Europe.

    Could you imagine someone running for president and never having visited Europe.

    McCain has gone to nato security conference meetings every year in europe.

    McCain has gone to davos annually.

    McCain has relationships with all the leaders in europe.

    McCain has a background on the armed services committee. McCain is the ranking member on that commitee.

    Obama has never attended a nato security conference meeting in europe or gone to davos or have any relationships with the leaders in europe.

    Obama wouldn’t meet the opposition leader of italy because he was in presidential mode and didn’t want to meet anyone besides leaders.

  • Maybe Hon. Sen. McCain should visit Peru to learn about how his “free trade” agenda is going down. I note also that while the Senator is glowing in his praise for bilateral agreements and other limited treaties like NAFTA, he is silent on the US’ intransigence as regards the Doha round of WTO.

  • Obama has also never visited latin america.

    How is this guy running for president.

    Clinton had relationships with leaders all around the world and Obama mocked her experience as having tea.

    What a disgrace.

  • Obama is pro free trade.

    Obama in 2004 said NAFTA had helped the state of illinios.

    Obama in that san francisco fundraiser went after small town pennsylvanias for being anti trade.

    Obama’s closest advisor samantha power said ohioans were obsessed about trade.

    Obama thinks like a free trader he wants to help out the countries around the world with trade.

    He even said his rhetoric during the primaries was overheated.

    Obama used the nafta issue against clinton for votes while Obama is far more pro free trade than Clinton. It is in Obama’s DNA to be pro free trade.

  • Hillary had paid her dues. Hillary is a remarkable lady and she got more votes.

    Hillary should be the nominee. She has the experience.

  • Ironically, McCain believes that people who’ve never had abortions are still qualified to overrule Roe v. Wade.

    IOKIYAR

  • “Could you imagine someone running for president and never having visited Europe.”

    I probably couldn’t have imagined it before seeing George W. Bush, whose first trip to Europe was in June 2001.

  • Could you imagine someone running for president and never having visited Europe.
    Republicans can. From the Telegraph.co.uk, April 2, 2000:
    Europe remains Bush’s blind spot as trip is axed.

    …In contrast to Mr Gore, who as Vice President for the past eight years has got to know dozens of foreign leaders including Mr Blair, Mr Bush’s foreign experience is limited to a handful of Latin American countries and a single visit to Israel…

    Fancy that.

  • McCain should visit a gas pump, a homeless shelter, an emergency room, and a few of the stagnant pools left in foreclosure as they become breeding grounds for West Nile Virus.

  • Dear jeff,
    What’s Obama’s position on spamming the site with 5 posts inside of 10 minutes? Also, if Hillary should be the nominee, then why did she endorse Obama? Last question: is the McCain campaign paying you for this nonsense and if so, how much?

  • Mmmmmmm…McCain points. Keep it up, Jeff. Remember, 1000 McCain posts gets you ONE (1) Schrute-buck!

  • I’m with you MsMuddled

    I’d like to know just how many m(b)illions old wifey McCain is going to be getting from this deal.

  • Jeff, stuff it. Now all the sudden you care what Europeans think? McJoke is a joke and you are a joke.

  • McCain is right! Obama is making policy statements regarding what to do in Iraq and other locations without visiting the places to meet people face to face to see what is actually going on so he can make a better and more informed decision. why go on the trip with such a narrow minded focus. could it be that for 2 years he said that we would lose in Iraq and was against anything that President Bush did? it appears to me that his campaign is spiraling out of control and his unwillingness to have town hall meetings really is leaving questions in peoples minds. giving speeches his obama’s strength but answering hard questions in a honest fashion is not.

  • It sounds like many of your readers are unaware that McCain has written and co-sponsored more legislation than Obama, Kerry and Clinton combined in the last two years. But the facts aren’t really what this crowd is about — just feels good to vent I guess.

  • mccain keeps telling obama where to go. he should visit germany to bask in the millions his wife just made on the sale of budweiser, another american company sold to forirgners.

  • Wow – this group has really read the talking points. An um yohahn … Budweiser is an international company. The board spans 8 countries including Germany.

  • Slappy sez: “McCain believes that people who’ve never had abortions are still qualified to overrule Roe v. Wade.”

    It’s actually worse than that… McJerk believes that a bunch of old men are qualified to tell all women what they can and cannot do with their uteruses. Even his mom says that’s nuts. But in his defense he’s also taken the opposite position (from himself) several times, because that’s what you do when you’re a “straight talker”.

  • Yohahn – what you liberals don’t know about international business would stop up a black hole. I’ll keep it simple because it would seem that your only reference is Google. Budweiser is a brand name owned by Anheuser-Bush Inc. It was started by German immigrants in the U.S. However, it is now what we call an international company. That means that it has subsidiaries and licensed contractors all over the world. Companies (especially in Asia) own, under a license agreement the use of the name and they sell beer and other products under that name – that means many hundreds of companies sell and make a profit from the Budweiser and Anheuser-Bush names. The majority of that profit stays in that country and pays for the labor, marketing, insurance etc. for that company in that country. The “sale” of AB, Inc does not change any of that. American business accounts for bout 95% of AB, Inc.’s sales. As an international business, that does not change either. Those sales and the resulting profit are made by the local businesses like your neighborhood liquor store. The US economy benefits from this kind of market. Keep doing your google searches and I promise you (because that how markets work) that there will be exciting news in the next year or so about how many thousands of jobs were created right here in Yankee Doodle America because of this … how did you put it, sale of another American company to foreigners.

  • Hey Rege – Are you actually an Obama supporter who is criticizing McCain for covering every angle of an issues? Come on, you can do better than that. Isn’t there something you don’t like about McCain that doesn’t reflect poorly on your own guy? How about his foreign policy. That’s safe because Obama hasn’t got one … unless you call “I’ll do things differently than this current president” a policy.

  • “Apparently, McCain and the RNC wanted voters to believe only those who’ve made regular trips to the Green Zone are qualified to speak on conditions in Iraq.”

    Only counts if the brainwashing takes…

  • JHM: Free trade in Peru as well as South America in general is part of McCain’s foreign policy in terms of internal economics and even national safety. However, supporters of the Free Trade expansion in Peru include Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. The only difference is that the later two jumped on the bandwagon only when campaign cash came along with the decision. McCain has not only been to the region several times, he has been involved in helping South American countries develop strong and economically beneficial international trade relationships since joining the Senate. You would be hard pressed to find Peruvians who feel that an open trade relationship with the US is a bad thing. Perhaps you should plan a visit JHM – Google Earth does not count.

    http://aggravated.blogspot.com/2007/11/hillary-backs-bills-naftavotes-for-peru.html

  • JHM: Free trade in Peru as well as South America in general is part of McCain’s foreign policy in terms of internal economics and even national safety. However, supporters of the Free Trade expansion in Peru include Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. The only difference is that the later two jumped on the bandwagon only when campaign cash came along with the decision. McCain has not only been to the region several times, he has been involved in helping South American countries develop strong and economically beneficial international trade relationships since joining the Senate. Perhaps you should schedule a trip .. GoogleEarth does not count.

    http://aggravated.blogspot.com/2007/11/hillary-backs-bills-naftavotes-for-peru.html

  • Mitch @ 33:

    unless you call “I’ll do things differently than this current president” a policy.

    Actually, I do. And considering how thoroughly the current occupant of the White House (six months and five days, baby!) has frakked things up, I think that even a simple Costanza Principle would be an improvement.

    Of course, Senator Obama actually has an articulated policy, but why let facts get in the way of your rant? I hope you enjoy the McCain golf cap…

  • All of McCain’s positions were given to him by his staff.
    McCain has been MIA on everything with his staff running the entire show and him showing up to find out where he’s supposed to stand.

    McCain never needed to even visit the dog and pony show to advance his Iraq policies since they were identical before his visit as after with the difference being that more Iraqis got killed as a direct result of his pandering. He lied (oh, sorry..mis-spoke) about carefree strolls in the market place and how military leaders cruised around without the use of armored Hum-vees. His multiple visits couldn’t prevent him from confusing Sunni, Shia and Al qaeda or even where the borders were.

    Since one must trust the commanders’ on the ground assessments and can only go where they take them or see what they show them anyway then basically Obama and McCain could learn just as much from a phone call as they do from a visit. The difference is they can talk to soldiers personally for their opinions but that is it…and frankly they could learn as much from soldiers returning from the field.

    I wish the Obama campaign would just tell McCain the next time he says Obama shjould visit another country, “It didn’t do you any good”.

  • I have lived in Europe & the UK for many years, I really would like to see Obama in London, 1 in 5 of the British adore him and he has a 96% approval rate in France compared to McCain’s 11%, from what I hear the Germans are looking forward to an Obama presidency, Bush has already tried to mess up that trip, trying to stop Obama from speaking at the Brandenburg Gate. Be careful what you wish for John McCain, it may backfire.

  • Someone mentioned that McCain has relationships with the leaders of Europe, could they please list them, I would like to find out from my connections there how extensive this is, they watch politics very closely over there.

  • On McCain’s relationships with foreign leaders as well as leaders to be see (among many) AP’s comparison between McCain, Clinton and Obama.

    http://www.nysun.com/national/mccains-foreign-policy-experience-has-breadth/72988/

    As far as the British and French and Germans liking Obama – let’s not forget they liked Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon too. They also liked Hitler in 1930. Not exactly a glowing endorsement for leadership. Being liked by foreign leaders is very different than being respected. Leadership is about respect, not saying what people like to hear. During Clinton’s second term in office his likability was very high in Europe while his respectability numbers were extremely low and still are. In contrast, Ronald Regan’s respectability rating shot through the roof while he was being vilified in the press here and abroad.

  • Nice dodge Bernard HP – you have done your party and your candidate Obama proud by carefully avoiding the facts and appealing to emotion rather than reason.

  • It (Budweiser) was started by German immigrants in the U.S. — Mitch, @32

    Um… Not really. It was started by *Czech* (Bohemian) immigrants, from the village of Budejovice. The name (of the beer) is German because, at the time, Bohemia was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where a version of German was the official language. To this day, the Czech Budweiser is 10 times better than the US one, though it’s no longer called Budweiser. Sadly, a few years ago, Budejovice brewery — much smaller than Anheuser-Bush — lost the suit over the right to use the name of the beer which they’d been brewing for much longer than the US.

  • Hello Libra – the Czech and the American groups are completely independent from each other – no blood connection at all. The international courts have not been able to settle the matter and depending on the country you will find a different settlement. In some cases Anheuser-Bush has to sell under a different name as in the case of Germany and in other cases Budvar has to use another name, as in the case of Ireland. The companies did not even know of the others existence until the 1970’s when they began exporting. Whatever the outcome, your taste is impeccable and I agree… the American version sucks!

  • To Jeff – Just for your information, the UK did not love Hitler in the 30’s, I was actually there,as a child I was not that crazy about spending nights in a dugout to get away from the bombs, but that is another story. A little bit more info you may not be aware of – The Bush family were great admirers of Hitler, Prescott worked with a group to try to overthrow the US government at the time, the family worked to supply arms to the Nazis. Do your homework.

  • JS – If you want to get into a pissing contest about which country appeased Hitler more, the UK or the United States you will be soundly sodden my friend. If you were spending nights in a dugout (usually called a bomb shelter by actual Brits) in 1930, your family was a few chips short of a fish & chips. Math is required for real life JS, not just far left blogs. As late as 1939 Neville Chamberlain was still calling for appeasement (see his speech below) Not a single bomb dropped on English soil until June of 1940. I mentioned 1930 because the Nazi Youth was organizing marches and parties in your neighborhoods (you might have missed that being buried in a dugout) and the general consensus in England and most of Europe was that Germany had every right to invade Poland and that it would end there. It would seem you are still a little buried in a dugout.

    Secondly, would mind giving some references (as I do) to your claim that the Bush family were great admirers of Hitler and worked to supply arms to the Nazis. Preferably not a Charlie Sheen or Move On quote, I’d like to see something along the lines of actual journalistic integrity.

    My references – besides a simple dictionary.
    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm
    http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

  • To Chris I don’t think you read my comment, I did not say I was in a dug out in 1930, my comment mentioned the 30’s. And the English people were not happy with Germany, the appeaser was Neville Chamberlain. Saying he represented the feelings of the English would be like saying that Americans approved of torture, and we know most do not.Actually I did spend my nights in a dug out during the air raids, when the bombs were dropping, many of us did not have a bomb shelter, and did not have time from when the siren sounded to get to a communal shelter. Although a child of six, you can believe I was listening to the adults conversation, remember most of it vividly.I can tell you, dug outs are no fun.If you don’t know about Prestcott Bush, I am sure you can get a sanitized politically correct version by googling Bush – Nazi link.My references – memory, so please no crude mention of my family.There were no Nazi youth marching in England.

  • Well JS, not only do you not read much news, you don’t even read your own posts – I’m Mitch, not Jeff and not Chris. And you did seem to claim that in 1930 you were in a bomb shelter of some kind. Britain had an active Nazi youth organization beginning in 1926 called the British Union of Fascists BUF). They had youth clubs and dances and marched. Again, you may have missed this, you would have been negative 6 or so then – so your memory might be a little sketchy since you don’t rely on historical fact. And, since you aren’t interested in historical fact, I’ll leave your comment about the Bush family where it lies, in the “Waste of Time” file.

    Now, let’s please return to planet Earth and the actual issue of leadership. First of all – your response about the Bush family came after I said that it was not a good idea to base any leadership potential of a US President based on whether or not European people and leaders “liked” a person. And as an example among others, I said that Europeans liked Hitler in 1930. From that you went into a conspiracy theory mode and I think the point was lost. Basing American leadership on European poling or on European ideology is not only sophomoric, but dangerous. One would have to have buried himself in a dugout since 1930 to miss that point.

    • Comments are closed.