Ageism and John McCain

"At the age of 72, having survived trench warfare in World War One and the great depression, he was still tending a several acre wide farm."
Great. But I understand he didn't buy a new farm at the age of 72, or that these were his most productive years. I know a great guy who, at age 80, is still doing a freelancer job as a software programmer. However, he isn't ambitious (if not to say, crazy) enough to try to really do a full workweek, 40+hours, anymore. Since the age of, say, 70, halftime is good enough for him , and I think that's good for his health, too. I haven't asked him, but I'm sure the pure idea of getting into a totally new job, one of the most demanding of all, at age 72, would sound like totally lunatic to him.

One other point: Despite all prayers and good wishes, death can strike out of a sudden at that age. In the case of McCain, the US would then be stuck with his VP. Now imagine he would pick someone like Dan Quayle (not much worse than the Huckster, imho). Of course this has to be taken into consideration, giving McCain's choice for VP a much higher importance than the tickets of his younger rivals.

Fair enough, Gray. And as I pointed out, I'm not saying that his age isn't a valid point to consider for anyone weighing the candidates' relative merits. For the record, I don't plan on voting for McCain, but it's not because of his age at this point. If he releases his health records and everything looks normal, and he seems to be maintaining mental acuity, I'll just stick to criticizing his policy positions and leave age out of the mix. Speaking for myself only, of course.

Jazz, I'm the last to argue in favor of ageism (at my age, etc). My dad died at 83, and yes, I know older men in great health. But this isn't an unsupportable prejudice like racism or sexism. No matter how exceptional (in the sense of exception-to-the-rule) one thinks McCain is, no one is at his prime at 70--he just isn't. And his health risks are a critical issue. This may be the toughest job on earth. Look at before/after pictures of any president, consider the travel, the hours, the import of decisions. And please, look at the evidence. It's not hard to find. Google age, risk, stroke. Age, risk, heart attack. Age, risk, cancer. Age, risk, dementia. And look at the underlying cause of many of these, the relationship between age and antioxidant capacity. Cerebral blood flow. You don't even have to read. Check it on Google images for LOTS of graphic depictions backed by serious scientific study. For that matter, ask an actuarial. Now try to find anything science-based that supports racism or sexism. Let's not equate these things. We decline with age. It's a fact.

Now, to McCain specifically. He didn't have that tumor on his face at age 46. Reporters who covered him in 2000 and now in 2008 admit, some reluctantly, that he is not as energetic, his speech not as sharp and the "senior moments" (Sunni/Shia, forgetting his own record, etc.) were not present 8 years ago.

I'm sorry. I think all Americans, older ones included, deserve every opportunity they can handle. But I'm choosing a CEO here and being past retirement age at the start of a tough job for which he has no executive branch experience is a deal-breaker. No sale, sorry, but maybe we can use him in some less demanding capacity. How about aging senator?

GD: I can appreciate your calculation there, but for some of us if the choice is between an older person without excecutive branch experience and a young person with no executive branch and very little national legislative branch experience, who is making foreign policy statements that make no sense, it's a no brainer that we'll take our chances on the old guy- particularly if his health records show that he's one of the seniors who is beating the odds of how time affects one's physical stamina and mental acuity.

CS, like age, experience cuts both ways and does not always bring wisdom. McCain, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the entire neocon team have shown us that being experienced at making bad decisions does not good decisions make. Whose foreign policy decisions make no sense?

(whistling 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' on the way out the door)

Yes, GD, because McCain has been EXACTLY like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and the sum total of McCain's foreign policy is encapsulated in one really dumb and impolitic joke that he made. <rolls eyes>

[Obama] is making foreign policy statements that make no sense

Hrmm?

Like that Iran is training Al Qaeda? That we will be able to have permanent bases in Iraq without stirring religious hatred? That we shouldn't negotiate with our enemies?

No, Chris, like saying one day that Iran isn't a very big threat to our national security and then the next day saying that he's always said that Iran poses a grave threat.

Or saying at a debate and on his website that he will hold direct negotiations without precondition with Iran, while his staff and surrogates say otherwise.

Or saying that he WON'T negotiate with terrorist organizations like Hamas (not clear whether or not he would do so if they once again take the reigns of power in a legitimate election) but not explaining why it is different then to negotiate with a government that finances a terrorist organization.

And while I should probably ignore the bait you're throwing out, I'll just point out that none of those are accurate statements of McCain's- the first one being the ony one that he did say, but later corrected (and yes, I realize he said it several times and I don't claim to know whether or not he knew it was a misstatement at the time, or if he was alleging something that isn't proven and later retracted it because of the political fallout.) Can you stick to the subject at hand and comment on OBAMA's foreign policy positions?

No, Chris, like saying one day that Iran isn't a very big threat to our national security and then the next day saying that he's always said that Iran poses a grave threat.

His point was that Iran doesn't pose a threat near as great as the Soviet Union. Rightwingers that act like the struggle vs. Iran is World War III or a second Cold War should keep some perspective.

Or saying at a debate and on his website that he will hold direct negotiations without precondition with Iran, while his staff and surrogates say otherwise.

He's trying to play it both ways, which I don't agree with. But I do think he has been fairly consistent about not requiring them to dismantle their nuclear program before negotiations begin, which has been a precondition of the Bush administration. Since nuclear power is THE issue regarding Iran, and their only bargaining chip, it doesn't make sense that they will abandon it prior to negotiations.

Or saying that he WON'T negotiate with terrorist organizations like Hamas (not clear whether or not he would do so if they once again take the reigns of power in a legitimate election) but not explaining why it is different then to negotiate with a government that finances a terrorist organization.

We shouldn't negotiate with Hamas either way. That's an Israeli issue. Hamas is not our enemy, but Israel's.

I'll just point out that none of those are accurate statements of McCain's- the first one being the ony one that he did say, but later corrected

McCain corrected it, and then repeated the error after the correction. He's playing the same Bush game of conflating all of our enemies with Al Qaeda. It's dishonest and shameful fearmongering.

Can you stick to the subject at hand and comment on OBAMA's foreign policy positions?

Just waiting for you to put me in the right direction. Thanks :-)

Since nuclear power is THE issue regarding Iran, and their only bargaining chip, it doesn't make sense that they will abandon it prior to negotiations.That's not true though- they also want influence in regional talks about Iraq, and they undoubtedly want to pursue partnerships in the region to strengthen their own economy and provide for their energy needs. Those are all things that we would find some ability to work with them on- and in fact we have been doing so by participating in multilateral talks regarding Iraq.

We shouldn't negotiate with Hamas either way. That's an Israeli issue. Hamas is not our enemy, but Israel's. We've been involved in trying to broker the peace between Palestinians and Israelis almost from the start, and we currently form one fourth of the 'Quartet'. Are you saying we should abandon that?

McCain corrected it, and then repeated the error after the correction. He's playing the same Bush game of conflating all of our enemies with Al Qaeda. It's dishonest and shameful fearmongering.Yes, I think that's quite possible and even a likely interpretation. My feeling on it though is much like yours when you say you don't like the way Obama tries to play things both ways.

BTW, CS, it's not that McCain has been exactly like Bush and the neocons (though he has certainly adopted their playbook). It's that the GOP had complete control; both Houses, the presidency and the courts. They set the agenda, wrote the budget, wrote, passed and signed the laws, planned (or didn't) and waged the war. Wrecked the budget, ruined the economy, neglected the environment and stole from our kids.

America--and the world--gets it. The Republicans have shown us their stuff. McCain is viewed, and justifiably I think, as a continuing trek down that same path.

We're ready to try something different. And why not? Bush and the neocons have not been effective against Iran--hell, we gave them Iraq and have had NO impact on their nuclear program. Not effective against Hamas or Al Qaeda or the Taliban. CS, their policies are a failure ! McCain does not offer a change from that.

No arguments really about failures of the Republicans, but I see that much more as a failure of ethics and good governance that results from undivided rule than from a true failure of the ideological underpinnings.

The world gets it? And that's why Europe is tilting more conservatively?

And you are way overstating the failures- Iraq has improved lately, and al Qaeda is greatly debilitiated. McCain doesn't offer a 180 degree change, and in my mind that's a good thing because there's absolutely no reason to think that if you are heading off a cliff on one side of the road that you will get back on the road in the right direction by turning the steering wheel hard in the opposite direction and gunning the accelerator. A much more nuanced and cautious correction is needed IMO and that's what McCain offers.

No arguments really about failures of the Republicans, but I see that much more as a failure of ethics and good governance that results from undivided rule than from a true failure of the ideological underpinnings.

The Republican party no longer has any ideological underpinnings. Republicanism hasn't equaled conservatism for a while now, instead it's just a party organized around exploiting wedge issues and fear in return for money and power. You should ask me what I really think some time :-)

The world gets it? And that's why Europe is tilting more conservatively?

What Europe considers conservative would make most U.S. Democrats blush as far too liberal. Be mindful of the context...

And you are way overstating the failures- Iraq has improved lately, and al Qaeda is greatly debilitiated.

Which level of Hell is Iraq the equivalent of now? And which Al Qaeda are you talking about? Because there was a recent GAO report that said: “al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan.”

A much more nuanced and cautious correction is needed IMO and that's what McCain offers.

In what respect?

Iraq has improved lately?

Summary:  The Bush administration's new strategy in Iraq has helped reduce violence. But the surge is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state and may even have made such an outcome less likely -- by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni tribes and pitting them against the central government. The recent short-term gains have thus come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq.

and Europe trending "conservative" doesn't mean much in this context. They're not dismantling universal health care, gutting the treasury at their kids' expense or launching "pre-emptive wars". I just mean the world "gets" what Bushco was about. You'll not find any of those "conservative" officials in Europe praising Bush.

But cautious and nuanced McCain? I disagree. He embraces making Bush's irresponsible tax cuts permanent, which our kids can't afford, and endorses a continuation of a belligerent militaristic foreign policy.

I think most people here know we haven't gotten "tax relief". A family of four in the US today spends $1,000/MONTH in interest on the debt racked up by so-called fiscal conservatism. Every dime the government spends is a tax and the major focus of the GOP, since Reagan, has been to put that on our kids' bill rather than paying our way as Goldwater advocated.

"a party organized around exploiting wedge issues and fear in return for money and power"

Ouch. Well said.

Back to the original point of this piece, about McCain's age and whether it matters.

The latest flap about this is very central to the McCain/Obama foreign policy experience debate. McCain blew it on this issue in two ways. First, Obama never said he'd meet with Iranian president Ahmadinejad (whatever we may think of the idea of doing so). And second, what McCain knew in 2003, he seems to have forgotten in 2008, that it is the Ayatollah and the Council of Guardians who hold the power in Iran, not Ahmadinejad. Questioned on the matter by Time's Joe Klein, McCain sounds stupid and tries to wiggle out by giggling ineffectually. He even says "maybe I'm wrong, (he is) but I don't think so." Watch it HERE

McCain's 2003 quote is HERE

Did he forget now what he knew 5 years ago, or does he think in the YouTube age you can just wing it and you'll get a pass?

Hmm. Well, going back to the question of age, I don't expect to worry about it much with regard to McCain's candidacy. It's just such a guess and an unknown that one can't profitably evaluate it. Yes, people in their 70s usually aren't as healthy as someone in their 50s, but I have no evidence McCain's problems are due to his age. The place it might make a bigger difference is with the VP candidate on his ticket.

1. Ageism against McCain backfires. As a cheap shot it only makes the shooter the cheap one in intelligent people's eyes, and if introduced, it wipes out Obama more than it ever can McCain, given Obama is to date still the lightweight among the candidates, and the cult status given him by the young voters only shows their immaturity and naivete', which are good at least for a few laughs at their expense.

2. McCain is no clone of Bush -- that is the most flimsy straw man of this year's political scene -- and being strong against our adversaries and enemies and in defense of us and our interests is morally as well as superior in other ways to those in this country who actually stoop to holding the opposite position.

"one really dumb and impolitic joke that [McCain] made"

It was dwarfed into nothingness by the "dumbth" and the impolitic responses to that joke.

"But cautious and nuanced McCain? I disagree."

You do, but for the wrong reasons. He's not so much "cautious and nuanced" but boring and pehaps inept (or actually intimidated and to some extent ineffective as a campaigner). Superdestroyer and those others of us who characterize him as the next Dole are onto something. (At least McCain doesn't use third person when talking about himself.)

instead it's just a party organized around exploiting wedge issues and fear in return for money and power. In stark contrast to our other major party, of course, which um, does exactly the same thing?

which our kids can't afford,Our kids can't afford all of the mandatory entitlement spending either, but you are embracing the proposed increases in that instead of criticizing those proposals.

As for Europe, I don't ignore the relative positions of left right there vs. here, but if you pay attention you see that the EU powers are very concerned about the sustainability of their entitlement programs. Of course they're not dismantling their universal healthcare systems though- that's the problem, that once in place these things become untouchable and can never be turned back even if the costs do become unsustainable.

Besides, I was mainly referring to foreign policy in referencing Europe's opinions. They don't embrace Bush but they aren't running in the opposite direction, either.

DLS, I have remained civil throughout all discussions here. As usual, you have not. I said 70 years old is not the prime of a man's life. You call that a cheap shot? Give me a break.

And treating a 46 year old man like he's some greenhorn kid is just nuts. That's close to the age companies consider too old for a new executive. Then you insult young voters. I pointed out the age-related health risks and cognitive decline, with links to evidence. Who's ageist?.

I don't generally bother to respond to your vitriol. Have a good night.

instead it's just a party organized around exploiting wedge issues and fear in return for money and power. In stark contrast to our other major party, of course, which um, does exactly the same thing?

Hrmm... other than abortion, which both sides exploit, I think there is a pretty big gap in the level of fearmongering and a focus on wedge issues.

Since 2002 the Republicans have literally said we would die if Democrats were elected. And they've pushed wedge issues like gay marriage.

Our kids can't afford all of the mandatory entitlement spending either, but you are embracing the proposed increases in that instead of criticizing those proposals.

That's 'welfare' spending. Let's use the proper words :-)

they're not dismantling their universal healthcare systems though- that's the problem, that once in place these things become untouchable and can never be turned back even if the costs do become unsustainable.

Social Security has been reformed before and it can be again.

Since 2002 the Republicans have literally said we would die if Democrats were elected. And the Democrats have said we're less safe because of Bush and Iraq, that our civil liberties have been stripped, that we've succumbed to fear rather than standing up for what America is supposed to be about, that our President sends kids to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement...need I go on?

No, entitlements are mainly SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and the problem with the ballooning cost is much greater than any of our politicians are willing to admit (Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan has made it much worse, and the Dems refuse to admit there's a real problem at all- and since Democratic voters have bought into the idea that EVERY problem that conservatives talk about is fictitious and being discussed for partisan gain through fearmongering, no one is actually addressing the problem.

Here're some facts:

Total health care spending in the United States has historically grown 2.5 percentage points faster than per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In particular, Medicare spending may rise even faster than the Trustees report estimates. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if Medicare spending continues to grow at the historical growth rate of total health care spending:


Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the health care program for the poor) will consume nearly the entire federal budget by 2050.
By 2082 Medicare spending alone will consume nearly the entire federal budget.
Can Higher Taxes Solve the Problem? The CBO also found that if federal income tax rates are adjusted to allow the government to continue its current level of activity and balance the budget:

The lowest marginal tax bracket of 10 percent would have to rise to 26 percent.
The 25 percent marginal tax bracket would increase to 66 percent.
The current highest marginal tax bracket (35 percent) would have to rise to 92 percent!
Additionally, the top corporate income tax rate of 35 percent would have to increase to 92 percent.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba616/

Basically, on this issue, the GOP fearmongers about a crisis but they're actually right (though instead of dealing with it, they made it worse) and the Dems fearmonger by scaring seniors into thinking that the GOP is just planning to cut their benefits and using the crisis as an excuse to privatize the system.

First, Obama never said he'd meet with Iranian president Ahmadinejad (whatever we may think of the idea of doing so).

Greendreams, now that its been shown that Joe Klein slandered McCain by saying that he lied (since the video of Obama saying what Klein claims he never said is right here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/200..., you may want to rethink your defense a bit.

Even before I saw that video I thought it was odd that people were pushing this idea that Obama never meant that he'd meet with Ahmadinejad, because clearly he'd been criticized for saying exactly that and he didn't seem to feel the need to correct the record. And when Susan Rice recently said in an interview that he didn't necessarily mean that he'd meet with Ahmadinejad, it was pretty clear that she was implying that Obama might plan to talk to Ahmad's successor in next year's elections, not that he was actually planning talks with Khameini.

I sit corrected. Klein was wrong.

But the voters will decide whether to give America 4 more years of tough-guy, smoke-em-out, dead-or-alive failure, coupled with more blood and treasure for the sands of the new Iran-friendly Iraq we created. How's that saber-rattling working out for us? But this time we mean it. We're gonna really give it to you now. Don't make us send more of our kids over there to whup your Arab butts. You'll be sorry.

McCain pledges to continue the war, Obama to end it. That's the choice and I think America is ready to change the channel.

GD, obviously when we state our preferred candidate's views in a positive way and our opponent's in the most inflammatory, negative way possible, it sounds as though only an idiot could support the other guy. I could just as easily rewrite one of your statements like this:
McCain pledges to support the COIN strategy to bring about victory in Iraq, while Obama pledges to declare defeat and begin withdrawing. Neither your statement nor mine gives the supporting evidence to show which is the more appropriate policy position, but we've each stated the aims of the candidates in the way that suits our preference.

Or, you know, I could say that after the failure of the Bush administration's hard line approach, Obama plans to take the opposite approach and attempt to pacify our enemies by legitimizing their concerns and finding diplomatic means to placate them. But that would *probably* be as much of an exaggeration of his policies as yours is of Bush's.