Last time John McCain gave an in-depth foreign policy address--his March speech in Los Angeles--the papers crowed that he was abandoning George W. Bush's approach to world affairs: "McCain Outlines Foreign Policy; In Speech, He Vows Collaborative Approach." (WP) "McCain, in Foreign Policy Talk, Turns His Back on Unilateralism." (NYT) I'm not so sure.
There's Obama's veiled, theoretical elitism, and then there's bloviating like Louis XVIII: Lawmaker stuns Colo. House by calling farmworkers 'illiterate peasants.' (Video here.) And this on the floor of the State House, rather than at a semi-private fundraiser--intentionally, according to the assistant majority leader: "It was premeditated bigotry. Doug Bruce is not a stupid man.
Here's why I'm skeptical that conservatives are interested in some sort of "mutual deterrent" relationship between Israel/the United States and Iran. Aside from the obvious fact that an Iranian nuclear deterrent would be terrifying, it's important to remember that movement conservatives have always opposed to mutual deterrence as a matter of ideological principle.
(Department of Energy) According to the Post, Tuesday's Senate hearing on the ever-increasing risk of nuclear terrorist attack was quite the spectacle: At the committee's request, Dallas prepared a report on the effects of a small nuclear device exploding near the White House. ... The 10-kiloton blast would release fatal doses of radiation in the immediate area and destroy almost all buildings within a half-mile radius, he said. The intense heat would burn people for many blocks and spark fires.
A couple thoughts on the debate question about extending U.S. security guarantees to Israel in light of Iran's nuclear development: 1) Since when did George Stephanopolous start taking cues from Charles Krauthammer? (Cf. the link and comment thread for an interesting discussion of Krauthammer's position on deterrence and Israel.) 2) It's not clear whether Hillary's answer--that Iran needs to understand "an attack on Israel will incur massive retaliation"--is a Clintonian parse.
While most of official Washington is atwitter about the grave risks of Obama's cultural elitism, witnesses before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs testified yesterday that that the likelihood of nuclear attack on a U.S. city continues to increase: "I definitely conclude the threat is greater and is increasing every year with the march of technology," said Cham E. Dallas, director of the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia. This is indeed the case.
Regarding our erudite debate about the Olympic Games, it does seem a little odd to label Hillary's call for a boycott "immature." After all, she's taking a calculated, pain-free political position that she will never have to deliver on as president.
If we've learned anything this election season, it's that there's no scandal too tawdry or too banal not to commodify.
After something like 48 hours on the mat, Obama is hitting Hillary back over the God and guns flap: "That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton," he added. "When Hillary Clinton says I'm out of touch I just have to remind people of the track record." He then went on to attack her for "campaigning for NAFTA" for "a decade" during her husband's administration. "This is the same person who says she's voting for the Colombia trade deal.
As Jason notes below, John McCain's biographical speech was a good imitation of Bob Dole, circa 1996. Additionally, it's worth noting the speech echoed the carefully constructed biographical narrative of another recent GOP candidate: George W. Bush. Ed Kilgore: The theme of the callow young man achieving maturity and then complete identification with his patrimony is as old as the Biblical story of the Prodigal Son.