Monday, September 18, 2006

# Posted 8:11 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SUNDAY MORNING ROUND-UP: George Allen and Jim Webb went head-to-head on NBC. CBS had a trio of senators -- Graham, Specter and Levin -- followed by Steve Hadley. ABC had John McCain followed by Steve Hadley.
Allen: B-. Knows his talking points. Still insists "macaca" was something he made up on the spot.

Webb: B-. Like Allen, no deeper than talking points. Worst of all was the Kerry-esque talking point about how Syria and Iran will help us fix thing in Iraq if we just approach them constructively.

Graham: A-. A solid defense of why it's wrong to abuse detainees.

Specter: B. Reasonable. Unexciting.

Levin: B. If CBS has on three senators, one has to be a Democrat.

Hadley on CBS: B-. Confusing. If Schieffer had been tough, Hadley would've looked very bad.

McCain: B. Candid. Quietly impassioned. But very confusing. For obvious reasons, McCain's position on this issue comes straight from the gut. He gets an 'A' for being on the side of the angels and for taking on a president from his own party, but his Sunday morning performance rested on a fair amount of oversimplification.

Hadley: C-. He gets a 'C-' and not a 'D' because the head of the NSC is obligated to attempt desperate spin jobs when the president stakes out an untenable position. All you really have to know is that when Stephanopoulos asked Hadley what techniques allowed by the White House bill would be outlawed by the McCain alternative, Hadley dodged, dodged and dodged again. In short, the White House is afraid to tell the American people what it actually wants to do to prisoners.
Finally, much praise goes to George Stephanopoulos, who was at least as tough on John McCain as he was on Steve Hadley. When a Republican goes against his party and takes a position approved by the media, he can usually expect softballs.

As a McCain supporter, I don't want my man getting complacement. The media will get a lot rougher during campaign season.
(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

Since you are a McCain supporter, maybe you can answer why it is better to seek to be loved by the rest of the world rather than protect your loved ones. That is McCain's position and it will certainly seal his doom in the Republican primaries.
I'm no McCain supporter, but what the hell are you talking about? How exactly does torture "protect our loved ones?"
If we don't torture them overseas, they'll torture our loved ones at home!
I thought DA was a professed Democrat?
DA is now an ex-professed Democrat.

OxBlog readers probably know that I was almost at the point of departure throughout the 2004 campaign.

Looking forward to 2008, I realized I already knew who I thought America needed as president: John McCain. I'm on his side.
So all the trying to help the Dems regain their national security druthers, the Pete Beinart pose, that stuff is all out? And is it just foreign policy, or are you leaning conservative now on domestic policy, taxes ect? Do you consider yourself a Democrat who supports McCain, or a Repblican or an independent?
1) None of our enemies pay the slightest bit of attention to the Geneva Convention and are never sanctioned for violations. As anyone from Vietnam ever been convicted of violating the Geneva conventions?

2) The Muslim brotherhood and it's offshoots Hamas and Al Quaida will not respect us for observing the Geneva Conventions. Neither will socialist Europe, China or anyone else. Merely by being a powerful capitalist democracy, we are Satan to everyone.

3) There has been an obvious attempt to define toture downwards to the benefit of our enemies. Torture is that which causes permanent physical harm. Anything else is not.

4) The Muslim brotherhood and it's allies will defeat us in the long run because we are too spineless to fight. We will go to our graves turning the other cheek, respected by no one.
Post a Comment