I'm ready to laser focus my efforts on what's been a major goal in my life for eighteen months now - cleaning house in Washington D.C. and returning sanity to government by electing a Democratic President.
I heard and read about John McCain's interview with USA Today last Thursday. Problem is, he made a comment that has stuck in my head like a bad BeeGees song - and today, well you'll need to follow me over the fold to find out. . .
The interview began fairly predictably I suppose:
During an interview Thursday with USA TODAY, McCain also made it clear that he would emphasize his steadiness and experience — particularly on national security issues — to counter the vibrancy and oratory skills that have made Obama a sensation on the campaign trail.
But which example from political history did McCain seize upon as a follow up to make his point regarding style versus substance?
"I believe that people are interested very much in substance," McCain said. "If it was simply style, William Jennings Bryan would have been president." (Bryan, a noted orator, lost three presidential elections as the Democratic nominee in 1896, 1900 and 1908.)
As TPM deftly points out:
It's unclear just how relevant this comparison will be to the average American. No voters alive today can remember Bryan's campaigns for president, which occurred in 1896, 1900 and 1908.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...
William Jennings Bryan, a striking figure, was considered one of the great orators of his time.
HE HAD SPIFFY CAMPAIGN POSTERS
Barack Obama is a handsome man
and we all know that he, too, has spiffy campaign posters.
And yes, he's a gifted speaker.
So maybe Mr. McCain, I'm seeing the parallel you were drawing, I guess not much has really changed since 1908, well a few minor things to be fair
THAT WHOLE CAR THING REALLY CAUGHT ON
WE HAVE TRANSZITER RIDIOS TOO !!!
and I'm racking my brain . . .
trying to remember from high school government class,
it seems like something kinda important happened in 1919,
dang if it's not on the tip of my tongue and I just can't . . .
OH YEAH,
smacks self on forehead V-8 style
THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUION
Can't resist a little reminder just in case John McCain stops in to peruse DailyKos on a lazy Sunday afternoon:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
There's lots of us around now,
51% of the voting population John !
So I imagined that just after this USA Today interview, an astute staffer took you aside and said "uh, er, Senator McCain, I'd avoid using that line again if I were you" (smiles nervously)
And heck yeah it got discussed to some extent on Friday, even here on DailyKos of all places.
The stunning part of this is that McCain's comparison of his race against Obama to William Jennings Bryan has now become a Republican talking point. I'm not kidding !
Wolfie had Bob Casey and Jon Kyl on Late Edition this morning and here's a bit of what was said:
BLITZER: Senator Kyl, your candidate, Senator McCain, your colleague from Arizona is going to face a formidable challenger in Barack Obama. I want you to listen to what former Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, said in "The New York Times" today. He said this. He said, "The hard truth is that from the moment Mr. Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois on February 10, 2007, Mrs. Clinton was facing a candidate with greater skills than any candidate."
Arguably the best political orator out there, Senator Kyl, right now since Ronald Reagan. How worried are you that Senator McCain would be able to do what Senator Clinton failed to do?
KYL: Well, William Jennings Bryant was the greater orator of his time, but I don't recall that he was ever elected president. It's true that Senator Obama has great oratorical skills. But he has sufficient deficiencies. The primary one of course is inexperience.
My biggest concern about his inexperience is that it's unleavened with any humility at all. He speaks in very positive terms about things of which he knows very little. For example, when he said that he would meet without precondition, the leaders of terrorist nations, he didn't just stop there. He went on to say that it was a disgrace that President Bush had not done so. This is the kind of thing that worries people who think seriously about the kind of security threats that we're going to be facing over the next four years.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/...
What brand of can of stupid is this talking point?