Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Let's all raise a glass to the DNC and hitting McCain where it hurts:

The McCain campaign doesn’t seem especially concerned about Democratic attacks that he’s running to give the nation a third Bush term. He doesn’t seem to care when people highlight his age. He shrugs off questions about his reputation as a hothead with a nasty temperament who flies off the handle on a regular basis. He couldn’t care less when he’s caught flip-flopping, abandoning long-held principles, or getting confused about the basics of public policy.

But bring up his line about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years, and McCain goes completely apoplectic. It seems to be the one point of criticism that McCain and his campaign fear most.

[snip]

There’s simply no reason for Democrats to feel even the slightest bit hesitant about using this. Even in its full context, McCain has said, on multiple occasions, that he’s comfortable leaving U.S. troops in Iraq for a century or more. The only way that’s even possible is to establish permanent bases, which are opposed by both Iraqis and Americans, and which fuel anti-American violence. He said it, he meant it, and Democrats would be insane not to tell voters about it.

And yet, McCain and Republicans have, for several weeks, launched a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people — everyone, really — to stop using the words “McCain,” “Iraq,” and “100 years” in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts.

As such, I’m delighted the DNC is ignoring the push-back and poking the sore spot.

Can't link to videos from our lovely work computers, alas, but if you drop by Carpetbagger's place, you can see the ad in all its glory. And let's all gleefully use "McCain," "Iraq" and "100 years" in every sentence we can possibly think of.

Raise your glasses, now: "Here's to St. McCain, who's willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years."

McCain's fuckwitted and completely divorced from reality views strike me as far more important than the hoo-ha over Obama's blank lapels, but apparently, other people don't think so:

In my heart of hearts, I don’t really believe there are any Americans who would base their presidential vote on flag pins and the Star Spangled Banner. People can and do back (or oppose) candidates for some pretty superficial reasons, but no one’s that dumb. My hunch is that voters, when it comes to Barack Obama, may decide they don’t like him for other reasons, and then rationalize backwards, coming up with pins and patriotism to justify a more personal animosity.

Nevertheless, thanks to email chains and the national media, Obama keeps hearing about this. At a town-hall meeting in Indiana, a woman told Obama that her mother wasn’t going to vote for him because he didn’t “address the flag.” Obama responded, “This is a phony issue, so let me address it right now.”

Can I just say how fucking ridiculous it is to base your vote on whether someone "addresses the flag" or not? It's right up there with lackwits choosing our next glorious leader based on his or her beer-drinking credentials. And the media feeds this inanity. They create an issue out of it. It's time for us to hit back.

Glasses up again, my darlings. "To Obama, who understands patriotism without pins. To campaigns with substance, and to a candidate who, unlike McCain, understands that we shouldn't stay in Iraq for 100 years."

I'd like to raise another toast to San Diego, which has apparently decided that Blackwater is an unwelcome addition to their beautiful city:

OTAY MESA – San Diego officials will challenge Blackwater Worldwide's permit for an indoor military training facility in South County, saying the public didn't know about the plan.

“Residents deserve to know when a facility like this is approved – before it is approved,” San Diego City Council President Scott Peters said.

[snip]

Brian Bonfiglio, a Blackwater vice president, said the opposition seems to originate from anti-war sentiment, not animosity toward the facility itself.

Good for them! And, as Digby wonderfully points out:

If that's so, then we are seeing a major sea change. San Diego is a super military town. If it's gone "anti-war" then you can pretty much guarantee that it's over for the pro Iraq crowd.

I don't know if it's actually true that San Diego is anti-war, but I think it's pretty clear that just about everybody is anti-Blackwater. This is an unAmerican company made up of war profiteers who have no loyalty to anyone but their own bottom line. The soldiers fighting over in Iraq on their third and fourth tours for peanuts certainly aren't crazy about the preening jackasses who make their job more dangerous.

These mercenary "security" companies do not adhere to American law and they don't answer to the American government. They are a very dangerous step toward a privatized military that answers to no one but its owners. The problem is that the rest of the world will hold Americans responsible for what they do and we will all pay the price.

Exactly. So, glasses up yet again: "Here's to San Diego for giving Blackwater the boot, and may they also give the boot to John McCain's 100-years-in-Iraq scheme."

This is fun. Who's raising the next round?