Talking About McCain's Foreign Policy

That's what I'm doing, on Warren Olney's To the Point program, which you can listen to here. My segment starts at the 40-minute mark, though listen to the whole thing if you want to hear Robert Kagan and an Obama foreign policy guy discuss how much they agree with each other about Russia and Georgia. I'm on there with Paul Alexander, author of the hagiographically titled McCain bio Man of the People. Like a lot of journalists who bet early on McCain's mavericktasticness, Alexander these days sounds a bit … disoriented.

Comments

[Andy Craig]

As a completely irrelevant, totally off-topic aside- what ever happened to reason's editorial meetings (or round table, or whatever you want to call it) getting posted to reason.tv? That was fun to watch.

[Cool Cal]

My suspicion is that Obama will prove to be a true Wilsonian Democrat. He will seek out so-called humanitarian missions in the same way Clinton did, if and when he exits Iraq successfully (though God knows what the fuck that even means existentially at this point). The real hypocrisy is that if a Democratic president had entered the middle east under the banner of liberating an oppressed people from their dictator (as Gore hinted at in 2000) rather than avenging 9/11, the left would have embraced that war too. For liberals, the bellicose itch depends solely on rhetoric.

[Yahoo Answerer]

I sometimes get the impression the Matt Welch does not like John McCain very well. Does anybody else get that impression?

[The Winter Soldier]

The reason Matt doesn't like McCain very well might have something to do with the fact that he doesn't like him very MUCH, either.

[Yahoo Answerer]

How did this spat begin? What was the context?

NOTE: I AM NOT A FAN OF MCCAIN MYSELF AND WOULD RATHER SEE MATT AS POTUS THAN MCCAIN.

[greenish]

Matt is refreshingly concise and well-spoken, especially compared to Alexander. Plus, he used the phrase "fancy-lad talk".

[shrike]

Oh, Zeus, this is so much fun.

Watching McCain/Bush vs Putin/Medevev is like watching a NASCAR race. Both sides are evil so the pending crash is the attraction.

[shrike]

For liberals, the bellicose itch depends solely on rhetoric.

Oh shit, I thought us "lib" types were moral relativists, you know, open to pot smoking, stem cells, and euthanasia. You know. "freedom" fans.

I'm sorry you hate freedom, brutha.

[Cool Cal]

shrike,

It's got nothing to do with freedom. How does interfering in foreign wars to prove our moral worth advance freedom here. In my opinion, it's not our place to promote freedom abroad via war, but rather through trade ... perhaps that's a bit parochial and not inspirational enough.

[shrike]

It's got nothing to do with freedom. How does interfering in foreign wars to prove our moral worth advance freedom here. In my opinion, it's not our place to promote freedom abroad via war, but rather through trade ... perhaps that's a bit parochial and not inspirational enough.

Definitely! Where did I go off course?

I think it was the "avenging 9/11" part (presumably) against the innocents in Iraq that you mentioned. THAT would set me off!

But your last comment is A-OK!

[B]

As I have asked before, when is this magazine going to endorse Barack Obama for president. It seems almost a majority of the topics on this blog criticize McCain in some way, yet there is almost no substantive criticism of Obama. Why is that exactly?

[B]

"It's got nothing to do with freedom. How does interfering in foreign wars to prove our moral worth advance freedom here"

Exactly. How does standing up to a virtual dictatorship after it invades a freely-elected sovereign democracy advance the cause of freedom? How, I ask, how?

[shrike]

Exactly. How does standing up to a virtual dictatorship after it invades a freely-elected sovereign democracy advance the cause of freedom? How, I ask, how?
Comment on this article:

Are you referring to Bush or Putin?

[Matt Welch]

As I have asked before, when is this magazine going to endorse Barack Obama for president. It seems almost a majority of the topics on this blog criticize McCain in some way, yet there is almost no substantive criticism of Obama. Why is that exactly?

We won't be endorsing anyone, as is our standard practice. We will, however, run a piece telling readers who every staffer plans to vote for, as is also our standard practice. I, for one, do not plan on checking the box marked "Obama."

You should stay tuned for our currently-in-production November election issue, in which we have several pieces assessing Obama, and what impact his presidency may have on stuff our readers care about.

And, we'll be covering the bejeebus out of the Democratic Convention in 10 days or so here.

[Underzog]

Al Reason should endorse the Muslim kid, b. Hussein Obama.

They are pro Islamic terrorist and b. Hussein Obama is PRO terrorist as his relationship with Bernadhine Dhorn, Bill Ayers attest.

And when are these Rhoemite Reasonoids going to cheer on Iran' nuking of the Zionist entity?

"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

[shrike]

Underzog?

Fucking amazing! Freepers do exist outside their nether zone of conspicuous paranoia!

[BakedPenguin]

shrike, Underzog is a Likudnik troll who likes to insult reason readers because many of us have the temerity to question pissing away billions and billions of American dollars on Israel.

[shrike]

shrike, Underzog is a Likudnik troll who likes to insult reason readers because many of us have the temerity to question pissing away billions and billions of American dollars on Israel.

Thank you!

To question is divine!

[Brandybuck]

I would be thrilled if McCain loses the election. To be fair, I would also be thrilled of Obama loses the election. If both manage to lose the election I'll be so ecstatic I'll probably wet myself.

[Ironic]

Brandybuck, how about we try four years without a POTUS. We might like it.

[Joel]

"None of the Above is Acceptable."

Come home, L. Neil Smith! All is Forgiven!

[ktc2]

McCain Foreign Policy - Rant! Rave! Bomb! Invade! War!

Obama Foreign Policy -

1. Talk
2. . . .
3. Peace

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"As I have asked before, when is this magazine going to endorse Barack Obama for president. It seems almost a majority of the topics on this blog criticize McCain in some way, yet there is almost no substantive criticism of Obama. Why is that exactly?"
B
And as I've said before rather than assume wicked pro-Obama bias, why not look at the more obvious answer: one of Reason's contributors has devoted a good chunk of his recent life to a book about McCain. It's his area of expertise now, so he writes about it a lot. No Reason editor has a similar background in Obama. Matt Welch took a bit of a risk writing about McCain, who had a good chance of losing the nomination for a while, but he lucked out and his subject is major news now. There's certainly nothing nefarious about that.

In addition, unlike Obama, McCain has been around for a long time earning the dislike of libertarians and those on the right. While many conservative publications, such as National Review, can turn, with no shame and true hack-like fervor, on a dime from fanatical anti-McCain rhetoric to fanatical pro-McCain rhetoric when the needs of the Almighty Party to which they pledge demand it, some mags, like Reason aim for more of a principled, consistent approach...One reason I like those sometimes nutty but luvable libertarian dudes...