Heating Up Between Polar Opposites

You likely have heard by now how different John McCain and Barack Obama are on the issues.

How different?  And on what issues?

Over the next few days I'll be touching on that as I examine The War, The Economy, Education, Health Care, Education, and Energy.

This is similar to the candidate by candidate breakdown I provided in the days prior to the Texas primary in March.  But now we're putting Obama and McCain side-by-side and digging a little deeper into each of the key issues. We're also looking at how (if at all) their positions have changed.

We begin with the war in Iraq.

BARACK OBAMA

courtesy ap/abcnews.com

Obama hangs his hat on never having voted for the war in 2002.  And he wants the troops home immediately.  He says he has a plan to get them home within 16 months of taking office.  That would make it July 2010. In 2007 he worked on senate bill 433 which would have begun the "de-escalation" of troops in Iraq.  And it called for:

The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group, if all the matters set forth in subsection (b)(1)(B) are not met by such date, subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes as contemplated by subsection (g).

Obama sponsored the bill and had three cosponsors. It never got out of committee.  Note the March 31, 2008 deadline for a bill that was introduced in January 2007.  That's a fourteen month deadline...two shorter than what he proposed now.  The bill applied to combat brigades...not all troops.

Obama has also talked about (and been criticized for) his willingness to talk with governments we consider our "enemies".  He calls it "a plan for regional diplomacy":

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

As far as Iran goes, his position may be shifting.  Here's an article from Wednesday written by ABCNews' Jonathan Karl.

Read Obama's plan in its entirety here.

JOHN MCCAIN

abcnews.com

John McCain is most quoted as saying he would be fine with being in Iraq for "100 years".  It is often taken out of context too.  Here is a link to the remarks, made in NH in January 2008.

His policy is a little more detailed than that-but it does not include the timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

His campaign site has an informative multimedia page dedicated to his views on the war.  He was one of 77 Senators to vote for use of force in Iraq in 2002.  (Obama was not in congress yet)

He says he wants the U.S. to "succeed" in Iraq:

The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

And while McCain spent much of the campaign talking about "no timetable", he released one in May.  It was part of his vision for the year 2013-the end of his first term should he be elected.

And in it he outlines the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, suggesting that most of them will be home (or in other regions) within five years.  In fact the plan states:

The Iraq War has been won, Iraq is a functioning democracy, violence is much reduced, and America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure.

The United States maintains a military presence in Iraq, but a much smaller one that does not play a direct combat role.

Here's a video that outlines the 2013 plan.

Thanks for reading. TA

Comments

[Gwen S.]

Jeremy,
I am not here to prove why GWB is better than Obama- That is not my job or problem. I simply countered Paul and some of his points. I have thought it out objectively and based on research was able to debate those points. You state that diplomacy works better for you when it comes to conflicts, No one ever said that is not the best course. You must look however at whom you are dealing with and what history shows us diplomacy has done with them in the past. If you think that McCain will run his presidency like GWB, guess again. His is very different and has spent 21 years learning and observing from the best political minds this country has seen. I think he is smart enough to try all options before engaging in another war. On the other hand, Obama may be too passive to defend us when we need it most. The economist statement I made was in reference to an idiotic statement that Paul made. McCain may not be knowledgeable on Economic issues, but he can hire the best. I don't think that works quite the same for defense issues. A mistake or bad advice can not easily be corrected, bad economic decisions can be easily addressed. Having a military background certainly should be seen as a bonus for anyone seeking the presidency, at least you would know if you were getting questionable advice.
I am not up to the argument anymore,It is late and I have had a very emotional day, I had to place my grandmother into a nursing home because of late stage Alzheimer's after being sole care giver for 11 years, forgive any errors in spelling or grammer, I didn't edit.

[Jeremy Wilhelm]

Hey Gwen,

You certainly appear to have done your research here, even if it sounds like you're relying primarily on fear to motivate and make your points... I'll only ask this: if experience is such an important quality in a presidential candidate, then how is it that George Bush was qualified more than Obama? Before you blurt out that he was the governor of Texas, which is big, lets make the point that foreign policy and defense are the issues you seem to be really concerned with here. Being Governor of Texas gives you very little exposure to any of that.

You state simply that McCain will hire an economist to run the economy. Do you believe Obama is incapable of hiring qualified people to do the right thing as regards our security? If so, I think you underestimate the man. Sometimes, leadership is more about appointing the right people, then asking the right questions. I believe Obama can do that very well. I don't doubt McCain could do the same. For me, the biggest difference is that McCain, Like Bush, only wants to talk to our friends. This seems like a sure fire way to never get anything done, except start a few more wars. In my personal experience, it's far better to talk to someone when a conflict is brewing than to shut off communications and rattle your saber.

Last point. You pull the reliable and trusty "flip flop" attack out to nice effect here. This always infuriates me. I understand the perception that politicians make their stands based on political expediency, but having an evolving opinion about complex issues is a sign of rational thought; not just wishywashiness (I just made up a word). Otherwise, you're telling me that you've held the same beliefs and convictions your entire life. Judging by your ability to craft an argument, I'm going to assume you've thought deeply about complex issues, and landed on either side of at least a few of them. I would hope, if just a little fleetingly, that all Americans have done the same. I only hope all voters will vote the issues... if McCain is the man based on that, then so be it. He just isn't based on the things that are important to me.

Good night....

[Musician]

If you think "any" change has to be for the better, you obviously did not live through the Carter Presidency.

Obama is dangerously inexperienced, as was Carter, and our enemies are "lickin' their chops" at the thought of him becoming our President. We don't have a great choice in this election, but we simply can't afford someone who thinks that government is the answer to every problem, as Obama does.

[bob]

Change we can believe in? At this point any change is welcome. Obama deserves a chance!

[Gwen S.]

Paul,
Soldiers sign up to serve their country with full knowledge they may have to SERVE at the Presidents call. You should also check your facts or at least verify they are not purposefully misleading (like the Move-On.org lies you are referencing), before you state them:

Distortion #4. John McCain opposes a woman's right to choose.

"He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

Senator McCain has always opposed Roe vs. Wade and according to an article appearing in the Washington Post he stated "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary" He goes on to say "But certainly in the short term, or even long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations"

He is also smart enough to realize that Roe v. Wade can not be repealed without being done in conjunction with efforts to reduce abortion through other means, including adoption and counseling.

Since the majority of Americans are pro-life, Sen. McCain is not radically different than most. There will always be a great divide on this issue, so this should not be a presidential litmus test, but rather a matter of one's own conscience.

Distortion #5 Attempts to Paint John McCain As Against Children.

"The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill."

Again, MoveOn takes a few of the facts and spins them to suit themselves. The CDF website states this when evaluating Senators and representatives:

"Members not voting and votes cast as "present" are scored as votes against children. While we acknowledge that some missed votes are unavoidable due to Member or family illness, it is not possible for us to objectively determine the reason behind each missed vote. For example, as a result of the presidential election in 2008, scores for some Members who have devoted significant time to campaigning for the upcoming election may be considerably lower than in past years."

Of the 10 votes held in 2007 of concern to the CDF, Sen McCain voted in two: He voted YEA in one (increase minimum wage) and NAY in the other (SCHIP). So for the votes he actually cast, he would be in the 50% category -- hardly the worst. In the previous 3 year's scorecards, Sen McCain did not appear in either the best or worst category.

It is interesting to note when looking at the scorecards over several years, that the supposedly "non-partisan" Children's Defense Council ALWAYS lists Democratic congressmen (by name) as BEST for children and Republicans (again, by name) as WORST for children. So, Democrats are UNIFORMLY more interested in protecting children, and Republicans are UNIFORMLY not interested in protecting children.

Non-partisan? Really?

Webb GI Plan:
His enhanced GI Bill (S.22) would be available to any member, active or reserve, who has served at least three months on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. The level of benefits would be tied to length of service. The $1200 member buy-in under the current Montgomery GI Bill would be returned.
The bigger change would be in the value of benefits. Maximum benefits, earned for 36 months' active duty, would cover tuition for up to four years at a level to match tuition at the most expensive in-state public school. The average across states is about $1900 a month. MGIB pays $1100.Webb's bill also would pay a monthly stipend to cover living expenses. The stipend would reflect local housing cost near school on a married E-5 scale.

Sen. McCain has come under fire for not signing on in support of the bill. After taking cues from the Defense Dept, he has crafted along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC and Sen. Richard Burr, R-NC a bill that offers enhanced education benefits with a lower price tag of an estimated $38 Billion over 10 years, financed by an across-the-board cut of a half percent in discretionary spending.

Graham-Burr-McCain Plan:

Graham's bill (S. 2938)would raise fullt ime MGIB benefits to $1500 a month, up from $1101, for all users. That would include veterans and retirees who left service long before the attacks of 9-11.
It also would offer new enticements – including eligibility to transfer benefits to spouse or children -- for current members who meet new MGIB-enhancement thresholds at six and 12 years of service. After six years, members could transfer half of any unused Montgomery GI Bill benefits to family members. After 12 years' service, the monthly benefit would pop up to $2000 a month, and members could transfer 100 percent of any unused portion to spouses or children.
Other attracted features of S 2938 include an extra $500 a year for books and a fresh chance to buy into the MGIB for roughly 5000 members still on active duty who first entered service when the only education benefit offered was the anemic Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).

Our military veterans need better education funding benefits than the current MGIB offers, but those benefits must go hand in hand with the ability to maintain our volunteer force. If retention numbers drop and the demand for a military presence increases we could be heading towards a draft. Surely the House will wisely consider all options and make the necessary changes that benefit both those that serve and the country they serve.

Your idiotic point #6- He can hire the most competent economist in the country to handle economic issues. What do you think Obama plans to do, he certainly didn't major in Economics? At least McCain is willing to say he isn't perfect, unlike your idol.

You should get real, this country is at a pivotal point in our history. If you truly care for America vote for the man best suited to protect it-John McCain.

[paul]

As a Disabled Desert Storm Veteran, I have more HOPE & TRUST with OBAMA than McCain.

Obama has a great plan:

1. Diplomacy
2. Increase Pressure on Iraqi Government
3. Increase Pressure on NATO
4. Increase Pressure on Allies
5. Use Military Mobilization

NOTICE he wants to use what we haven't YET; DIPLOMACY.

I like the fact that OBAMA DO NOT USE soldiers as TOYS.

For the posts that say OBAMA flip-flop; you need to look at McCain:

1. MCCAIN against BUSH in 2000 NOW he embrace over 95% of all BUSH POLICIES.
2. MCCAIN didn't vote for the GIBILL because he said "The GI BILL is too good".
3. MCCAIN voted AGAINST Women's Equal Pay
4. MCCAIN voted the WORST senator for Women's Right.
5. MCCAIN voted the WORST senator for Children's Rights
6. MCCAIN stated "I'm not economist and don't know financials like he should".
7. MCCAIN AGREES with BUSH on the GAS Crises.

I'm Sorry, OBAMA is the BEST CANDIDATE!!

[Gwen S.]

Excellent Comparison Tom.

Obama flip-flops. He Says whatever, does whatever it takes to get elected. The fact is, he is clueless when it comes to National Security issues and military strategy. If he is elected, our country is in big trouble.

[george r sands]

look at the confusion on mcvains face. he is always confused I believe. we do not need any more confused people in the government. do we now.