A lot has been made (appropriately) of the hypocrisy of the warm mongers, and particularly Saint Al himself, and John Edwards. But John McCain is pretty much just as bad on that score:
Like any limousine liberal, McCain prefers the symbolic gesture to walking the walk. In our News interview, he was asked what kind of car he drove. As with Politico's question about home ownership, he didn't know and had to ask a nearby aide. "A Cadillac CTS," she told him. But then the senator was quick to point out that he had bought his daughter a Prius -- the prefect halo symbol for his green pretensions.
Though it should be noted that he almost certainly actually did know how many houses he had, if not what kind of car.
But then the senator was quick to point out that he had bought his daughter a Prius
Indeed, why should anyone care that his daughter has a Prius, if his other car is a Cessna Citation.
Though it should be noted that he almost certainly actually did know how many houses he had
So, how many houses does he have?
Also, you said in the other post that McCain came by these X number of houses honestly. Does an extramarital affair now pass for honesty?
So, how many houses does he have?
I don't know. I don't care. But I'm sure he knows.
Does an extramarital affair now pass for honesty?
He didn't get the houses from an extramarital affair. He got them by getting married.
But I'm sure he knows.
The amazing phenomenon of certitude from zero evidence.
He didn't get the houses from an extramarital affair. He got them by getting married.
Yes, but there IS a causal connection.
The amazing phenomenon of certitude from zero evidence.
I'm sure he knows because he's not a stupid man. There is zero evidence that he doesn't know. He didn't say he didn't know. He just said that he'd have the staff get back with the reporter, meaning that he didn't want to discuss it (probably because he didn't want to get into an explanation of how many houses he owns versus how many his wife owns).
As I said, I don't care.
Yes, but there IS a causal connection.
So? How can you prove that he couldn't have married her without having had the affair? He could have divorced his wife earlier, and then had the affair. It was the marriage that gave him the houses, not the affair.
I'm sure he knows because he's not a stupid man.
I'm not saying that he can't count to seven, or ten, or however many mansions, condos, and houses he has. The simple reason that he doesn't know is that he doesn't care. I don't know exactly how many pots and pans I have; all I know is that I have plenty. If you live like the McCains, houses are like pots and pans. You can fly in your private jet from your house to your house to some other house, and it just doesn't matter any more which ones you own or rent or whatever. Since each house is prepped by your staff, you don't have to know anything about them.
I'm also not saying that anybody should take any of it away from the McCains. As long as they pay their taxes instead of skipping to Anguilla, they have a right to their astronomical wealth. The point is that if McCain knows so little about his own houses, then he's the wrong man to ask about the mortgage crisis. Not to mention that if his "car" is a Cessna Citation, he might not know much about gas prices either.
There is zero evidence that he doesn't know.
Other than that he failed to give a simple answer to a simple question.
He just said that he'd have the staff get back with the reporter
Is this going to be a week-long research project, or has his staff gotten back to the reporter as McCain promised? Anyway the non-answer that he did give reveals the truth: The McCains have so much access and money that their estate is a staffed court. They personally don't have to care about anything.
But hey, it's a good thing that he doesn't eat arugula, because THAT would make him an elitist.
How can you prove that he couldn't have married her without having had the affair?
Rand, "I could have told my wife and children that I was dating an heiress, even though I didn't" just doesn't count as honesty.
The point is that if McCain knows so little about his own houses, then he's the wrong man to ask about the mortgage crisis.
There are many reasons that McCain is the wrong man to ask about the mortgage crisis, but his unwillingness to discuss the number of houses he has isn't one of them. That's simply a stupid notion (which is why the donkeys are attempting to push it).
And it doesn't matter--that's why he has economic advisors. And unlike Senator Obama (who is even more in need of them), he has good ones.
[McCain's] unwillingness to discuss the number of houses
Now that I looked again, McCain certainly is willing to discuss the number of his houses, or rather to have his staff do it. His staff says that he has four houses. That answer is debatable, but in any case no one is claiming a secret. When McCain said that his staff would give the answer, he really meant that he didn't know, and not that there was anything wrong with the question.
Again, I know that McCain can count to four, or to seven if you also count Cindy McCain's three other houses. He didn't know because he doesn't care.
And it doesn't matter--that's why he has economic advisors.
But does he know who they are, what they have to say, or even how many he has?
You're right that it's very important to have good advisors. The president can't run the country all by himself. But there is no substitute for a direct connection to reality, because otherwise you can't tell good advice from bad. In fact, even if all of your advisors are both expert and unanimous, you won't even be able to interpret what they say if you have no personal knowledge. McCain has lived on a separate plane of reality for a long time, and I don't just mean his Cessna.
When McCain said that his staff would give the answer, he really meant that he didn't know, and not that there was anything wrong with the question.
We DO NOT KNOW what he "really meant." And no one with two neurons to rub together cares. There are many reasons to not want McCain to be president, but this is an idiotic one. And unfortunately, the only other option is Obama.
Gee, if I drove a Cadillac CTS, I would drive that puppy to Flint, Michigan and campaign there. Why does Senator McCain have to apologize about the Cadillac and point out his daughter drives a car imported from Japan?
Besides, the CTS is not an SUV or anything. I bet it gets close to 30 MPG on the highway.
We DO NOT KNOW what he "really meant."
So let's suppose that he meant exactly what he said, that his staff would answer the question. It came true: His staff supplied the number 4.
Gee, if I drove a Cadillac CTS, I would drive that puppy to Flint, Michigan and campaign there.
Well, there are more votes in Detroit, where Cadillacs are manufactured. Unfortunately, that particular Caddie is made in Germany. It's just a tarted-up Opel.
Unfortunately, that particular Caddie is made in Germany. It's just a tarted-up Opel.
But his Cessna is made in Kansas, so he (or rather his wife) bought American that time. On the down side, the Cessna gets maybe 3 miles per gallon.
Jim, how about you name a few Presidents -- or any world leaders -- who were clearly superior leaders because they had great experience with what daily life is like for the hoi polloi?
Most of our best Presidents-- and most of the best world leaders -- have been wealthy and successful men, who indeed don't usually know what the local bus fare is or when the local supermarket has their best sales on oranges. By the time you reach the age of Presidential aspirations, if your competence is significantly superior to others, that's almost inevitable.
I mean, what would it say about John McCain's general competence if he was 71 years old and still so poor that he lived in rental housing, ate macaroni and cheese, and knew where every penny of the monthly paycheck went? I'd say it would spell LOSER, a guy who can't plan very well.
Conversely, we've had a few clever "detail men" as President, master of all the facts, e.g. Carter, and they have not proven out so well. You've heard of the forest and the trees, right? The President is concerned with the former. It's a good sign that he's a little unclear and unconcerned with the latter.
Jim, how about you name a few Presidents -- or any world leaders -- who were clearly superior leaders because they had great experience with what daily life is like for the hoi polloi?
Abraham Lincoln, for one.
Most of our best Presidents-- and most of the best world leaders -- have been wealthy and successful men
That may be true --- I'm not sure if it's really "most" but certainly many of them --- but there are other factors at play. First, it depends on which problem they are called on to solve. Tony Blair had a keen grasp of middle-class aspirations in Britain, but he still screwed the pooch in Iraq, which was an entirely different issue. Second, it depends not just on life experience, but also on judgment. And third, even if you can afford a yacht, you can still make a study of the middle class if you want to.
BI mean, what would it say about John McCain's general competence if he was 71 years old and still so poor that he lived in rental housing, ate macaroni and cheese, and knew where every penny of the monthly paycheck went?
I concede that most people who can't find a job in middle age are either willful, lazy, or unqualified. I don't mean to sound callous about this, on the contrary I support government benefits for such people, e.g. Social Security, even if some of them unaccountably claim that they aren't counting on it. But I see it more a matter of self-improvement with the aid of a government safety net, rather than giving people money on the basis of merit.
Even so, you're really swinging between extremes in your argument. Just because McCain is too isolated because of his Cessna Citation lifestyle, that does not mean that the ideal candidate lives in a trailer park and eats Mac N' Cheese. Striking it rich the way that the McCains did goes way way beyond what you can achieve by merit alone. It requires a big lucky break, albeit less of one if you are also talented. Even if you're a top aerospace engineer, someone really talented like Harold Rosen, the more likely outcome is one small mansion and a few cars. Not four mansions, a private jet, and who cares about the cars. And the thing is, all that John and Cindy McCain did to obtain that wealth was marry the right person and be born to the right person, respectively.
So maybe the ideal candidate is someone who has had ordinary upper middle-class success. As it happens, that is where the Obamas were until last year.
Also, this:
You've heard of the forest and the trees, right?
That's sage advice, but even worse is someone who is so determined not to miss the forest for the trees that the sun blinds him and he misses the forest and the trees. That is what we have seen in this administration with Bush's assessment of Putin, Musharraf, and Maliki.
if not what kind of car.
There is another point here too. It is not plausible that McCain's car is a Cadillac CTS, because it is not plausible that a family with seven houses has only one car or even one main car. The way that people like that live is that their "car" is a jet, which in the McCains' case is a Cessna Citation Excel. (Not to be confused with a Chevy Citation.) As for actual motor vehicles, they can grab a car or a limo anywhere --- which brand and who owns it is trivial and irrelevant. And of course, they don't need to drive the cars themselves. Since they claim that McCain drives a Cadillac CTS, when was the last time that he drove a car? Does he still have a driver's license?
But hey, it's good that Cindy McCain does not buy $600 earrings, because THAT would be elitist. If you're Cindy McCain, you would more likely pay $600 for a personal shopper, after flying to New York for $6,000, and then the earrings would be $60,000.
Abraham Lincoln, for one.
Give me a break. Most certainly, Abraham Lincoln's greatness did not spring from his days as a country lawyer in Illinois. Geez, he was stalwart in his defense of the Union because....er...because that's what arguing cases in a one-room prairie courthouse will teach you? C'mon. I at least expected you to pick Andrew Jackson, whose frontier everyman experience certainly led directly to the populist changes he espoused as President.
Even so, you're really swinging between extremes in your argument.
Correct. Because it's only at the extremes that this judgment can be made. What you are doing is trying to split hairs absurdly. This particular income level indicates a man is so out of touch with normal human life that he'd be a doofus President, while that other means he'll be a sterling representative of Joe Everyman. Your ability to make such fine distinctions -- and convince everyone else of their validity -- seems iffy, at best. Let's remember that in the case of Obama and McCain, for example, you're not talking about a giant difference in wealth. They're both comfortably well off, McCain more so merely because he's older, and because his wife had an independent fortune. So? You're going to draw bright lines between the two and make giant inferences about their character and judgment. My friend, that is far too much conclusion to draw from too little and too noisy data. You'd be just as accurate flipping a coin.
Beyond that, I invite you to submit the case of a President who is a failure because he is "out of touch" with the little guy. Some of our most populist Presidents (FDR) have been wealthy patricians, and some of our most elitist and snobby Presidents (Wilson) have been of very modest means. I don't see much correlation.
And besides, who cares? Why does it matter whether the President feels in some personal sense the woes of the lower and middle class? How does that make for better government? It seems you would conjure up a fake world in which unless we careful Mr. Monopoly plutocrat goes to Washington and runs the world into the ground in pursuit of his own selfish ignoble motives.
This seems a little bit comic-bookish, to say the least. Why assume money power arises from any different and incompatible source than democratic power? Isn't the basic method of getting rich to provide some service that lots of people want, for the lowest possible cost? Isn't that a pretty decent workign definition of good government, too? So why would a rich man have interests radically different from a good politician? To be sure, a rich man has interests different than a poor man, but, alas, the interests of the poor man (give me some of that rich man's wealth) are not consistent with good government, but only with Robin Hood wealth redistribution, which is a short route to anarchy and economic ruin.
Most certainly, Abraham Lincoln's greatness did not spring from his days as a country lawyer in Illinois.
His experiences with physical labor and working for salary were directly related to his opposition to slavery. Since he himself split rails as a free man, he understood why it was wrong to have aristocrats enslave people to do the same work. By contrast, many of the patrician presidents who preceded Lincoln were moral cowards.
Let's remember that in the case of Obama and McCain, for example, you're not talking about a giant difference in wealth.
There is a crucial difference not only in how they live, but also in how they obtained their wealth. Until recently, the Obamas lived like very successful but ordinary Americans. One house, fly commercial airlines, pay the bills yourself. And their financial success is entirely their own. The McCains live like movie stars do, with a private jet, an entourage, financial staff, and seven houses.
Isn't the basic method of getting rich to provide some service that lots of people want, for the lowest possible cost?
No, the basic method is to control a service that lots of people want. Or if you are the McCains, inherit it or marry into the inheritance.
If you provide an important service without controlling it, then you're just an employee. On the other hand, if you control a service without necessarily doing anything yourself, you could be Cindy McCain.
So Jim, please tell us how you didn't vote for John "Heinz Fortune" Kerry.
So Jim, please tell us how you didn't vote for John "Heinz Fortune" Kerry.
That is a good question, Mike. It's not just a matter of judging McCain on his situation. As I said, even if a guy lives with a silver spoon in his mouth, he could at least learn to understand the ordinary people that he is supposed to represent. FDR is one example of that. So it's not perfect that John Kerry married into extreme wealth, but he tried not to let that bend his thinking.
McCain and Bush, by contrast, want tax policies that embrace their cushy, work-optional, risk-free lifestyles as the best direction for America. Their philosophy is that even if all you do to get rich is inherit, marry, or delegate everything, that that is still a privileged form of income that should be taxed less than working for a living. It's not true of course: no nation has ever just inherited its way to prosperity.
Open hypocrisy is never ideal, but there are times when it is better than untenable self-affirmation. If your doctor invests in Philip Morris but tells you that you shouldn't smoke, would you say: "Hypocrite! You sell cigarettes, so smoking must be good for you." It wold be better if such doctors lived by their own advice; but they are still right. In 2004, when it came to tax policy, Kerry was the doctor who owns some Philip Morris but campaigns against smoking. Bush was the doctor who owns some Philip Morris and promotes smoking.
There is also another kind of hypocrisy at play, the kind where you misrepresent yourself instead of merely speaking against your own situation. For instance, if you actually live in four mansions, but your wear some Walmart clothes for the cameras to look middle class. That kind of hypocrisy is never better than the alternatives.
"It's not true of course: no nation has ever just inherited its way to prosperity."
No nation has damn sure ever taxed it's way to prosperity. The market is a better decider of how to allocate this moeny than the governemnt. It isn't like the rich stuff it into mattresses.
They either invest it or they spend it on goods and services that enrich and employ the middle class and poor.
No nation has damn sure ever taxed it's way to prosperity.
That's just not true. Many countries are all but incapable of collecting taxes, and none of them are prosperous. Pakistan is a good example.
I'm not saying that more taxes are always better. On the contrary, taxes should be fairly low, as they already are in the United States. What's wrong is this all-or-nothing mentality, that if high taxes are bad, therefore all taxes are bad.
They either invest it or they spend it on goods and services that enrich and employ the middle class and poor.
Which is why people who inherit money shouldn't pay taxes even though I pay taxes? Excuse me, but I'm just as good at investing or spending money as Cindy McCain is. Better, because I work for a living and I actually know something about finance.
Where did this idea come from that if you work for a living, that's a taxable transaction, but if someone just gives you the money for doing nothing, then taxation is theft?
"That's just not true. Many countries are all but incapable of collecting taxes, and none of them are prosperous. Pakistan is a good example."
And that disporves my assertion how? That is a mind-numbingly dumb retort on your part Jim. It is a strawman of the lowest grade. Correltation does not equal causation. Cnsider this your memo becaouse you seem ot be the only one on this board that does not understand this. If you think lack of the ability to collect taxes is the root of problems in Pakistan, I suggest you retire from the internet now.
"Which is why people who inherit money shouldn't pay taxes even though I pay taxes? Excuse me, but I'm just as good at investing or spending money as Cindy McCain is. Better, because I work for a living and I actually know something about finance."
Of course they should pay taxes. Sales tax, property tax and the like. Just not taxes on money that was previously taxed, that is immoral. Inheritance taxes are fundamentally immoral. It was already taxed once. What morally entitles the government to one red cent of it? Nothing.
The fairest way to address this would be the fair tax, it would moot the whole issue now wouldn't it?
If it makes you feel any better, I am sure Ms. McCain has paid far more tax than you have.
^