Apparently my previous post struck a nerve with my buddy Chris. I don’t recall saying anything about cheap shots being the sole domain of the Democrats. I also think there’s a difference between saying something really stupid, like the GOP Congressional candidate he mentions in his post, and calling a candidate a “warmonger” and a “blatant opportunist”. I do give Obama credit for apologizing for Ed Schultz, but he had to do that, even if he agrees with Schultz. It’s hard to decide how outraged to be about what this McCain supporter said about Obama when it’s unclear what the guy meant by that statement (as Chris admits in his post).
I disagree with Chris and with Ed Schultz about McCain being a warmonger. Maybe it’s the definition we disagree about here. McCain intends to keep troops in Iraq as long as they are necessary to keep Iraq from falling apart. You can support that position or not, but this doesn’t automatically make him a warmonger. McCain won’t be trigger-happy on potential future wars. No one who has served in the military would be. I thought the Democrats had this view — that those who have never served should have less credibility than those who have when it comes to discussions of war. There’s another reason that McCain has a stake in Iraq, and it’s that his son is serving there. Do the Dems really want to argue that McCain wouldn’t take every future decision on what to do next in Iraq seriously with his son’s life on the line?
I’m not trying to defend Iraq. I don’t think it’s possible to make any progress on that argument at this point, since both sides have dug in their heels and nothing will keep them from believing what they believe about Iraq. But McCain has less faith in the Bush democracy project than he will admit.