On the front page of the New York Times this morning is a devastating, above-the-fold look at how the McCain campaign is distorting and lying its way to a lead in the polls. But the fact that the candidate is being called on it doesn't seem to stop him from doing it. Take, for instance, what he says about Obama's health care plan:

Disputed characterizations are not uncommon on the trail. At a campaign stop this week in Missouri, Mr. McCain said that Mr. Obama's plan would “force small businesses to cut jobs and reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”

Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that Mr. Obama's plan would not force families into a government-run system. “I would say this is an inaccurate and false characterization of the Obama plan,” he said. “I don't use those words lightly.”

In fact, what Obama got criticized for during the Democratic primary was the fact that his plan doesn't force people into any health care plan--government-run or otherwise, though it does include a requirement that children get coverage.

There are consequences to winning an election this way, and Mark Shields put his finger on them last night on the NewsHour.:

MARK SHIELDS: John McCain said -- and he meant it -- that he would rather lose an election if it meant winning the war when he supported the surge. And, right now, I think that that the bargain he has made -- and I hate to say this, because this -- these are dishonorable acts. This makes -- these are dishonest...

JIM LEHRER: Dishonorable.

MARK SHIELDS: Dishonest and dishonorable. And that's not the kind of campaign that one expected from John McCain. It is certainly not John McCain's lifetime. And one hopes that he is not going to trade his self-respect for political victory, because I will tell you, it will be ashes if he does win that way. It will be ashes. There will be no chance of bipartisanship.

You will think Bill Clinton had a rocky road in '93. It will be awful in 2009.

In that same segment of the show, David Brooks agreed that while both sides have been guilty of not always coloring inside the lines, McCain's offenses have been more egregious:

(more...)

On Page One of the Washington Post today, Michael Abramowitz has a more sympathetic view of that moment in the first Charlie Gibson interview where Sarah Palin seemed unfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine:

Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea -- enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document -- that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.

Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.

"If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it's one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine," said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. "But in fact it's not the only one."

Second guessing is always an easy exercise, but I think I might have preferred a more specific discussion of which aspects of Bush foreign policy Palin thinks have been successes, and which she believes have been failures.

UPDATE: Oops. It looks like Joe and I had a collision of posts here.

UPDATE2: I agree with Joe that the concept to which Gibson referred is one that has been well understood as the hallmark of this President's approach to foreign policy and the use of military power. Here is a description of this doctrine, in a cover story I wrote in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq invasion:

(more...)

There is a right-wing smokescreen emerging in an attempt to camouflage Sarah Palin's utter unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine. The new line, assayed by Charles Krauthammer and Peter Feaver among others, is that there were many Bush Doctrines. That is untrue.

There was only one Bush Doctrine. It was enunciated in this speech, delivered by the President, at the West Point graduation in 2002. It was a conscious effort to step beyond the Cold War doctrine of containment and announce a new strategic posture appropriate for the War on Terrorism. Here's the relevant section, the bold-face highlights are mine:

For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)

Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)

Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.)

That is the Bush Doctrine. Sarah Palin had no idea that it even existed. Any attempts to divert attention from her ignorance should be rejected for what they are--disinformation.