« Edwards Secured Private Commitment From Obama That He'd Go On Poverty Tour As Nominee | Home | McCain: Americans Should Be Afraid -- Very Afraid -- Of President Obama »
McCain Adviser: What Does "Deal With" Hamas Really Mean, Anyway?
When John McCain answered a question about diplomacy with the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories by saying that sooner or later we'll have to "deal with" the group, what did McCain mean? Did that mean actually talking to them?
On MSNBC this afternoon, McCain foreign policy adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer explained that the phrase, "deal with," has meanings other than diplomatic negotiations:
"Dealing can be anything from bombing to a bed of roses," said Pfotenhauer.
For the record, the transcript of McCain's original exchange with Jamie Rubin in 2006 is available after the jump.
Rubin: Do you think American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past in working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?
McCain: They're the government, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another and I understand why this administration and previous administrations has such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice. But it's a new reality in the Middle East. And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life, and a decent future, then they want democracy. But Fatah is not giving them that.
Advertisement
Exactly what I was saying this morning over on dKos. Those are the wiggle words that he will run for. He can play stupid and pretend he didn't mean "negotiate" and that makes it a dog whistle to the GOP lizard-brain "nuke 'em all let God sort it out" base.
May 16, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the drooling 25% of the population who need help getting dressed?
That's the only base the Repugs have left.
And I'm not even talking about the elderly - just the lamebrained.
May 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pres '08
May 16 GallupMcCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 45%Pres '08
May 16 GallupClinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 45%
May 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iranian perspective on US presidential race. The only one afraid is Mc Cain who sees himself away from the power to start another war. As an Iranian, I feel the rural America is being scared of an unfamiliar entity called Iran. I have aspent a whole night of my work making this little clip. It is not so professional but has the message. Please see and promote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVYlGZmtYg
May 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop spamming the threads ya fucktard.
May 16, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So McCain would lay Hamas down in a bed of roses?
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly.
John McCain is gay for Hamas!!! I'm pretty sure the GOP base will think that's way worse than negotiating with Hamas!
May 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lay them into a bed of roses, or lay down in a bed of roses with them?
One is bomb them, the other is spooning.
;-)
May 16, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's talking of doing the opposite of "antipathy." Which is bombing??? come on....
And the spooning idea... hmmmm Well, that would be opposite of antipathy!
May 16, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to lay you down in a bed of roses
For tonite I sleep on a bed of nails
I want to be just as close as the Holy Ghost is
And lay you down on a bed of roses
May 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, so American diplomats can "bomb" Hamas? Wow. I didn't know we gave American diplomats that power.
May 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard of a few ambassadors that like to get bombed out of the skulls... like the the ambassadorship to the Maldives, but that sort of bombing involves little paper umbrellas in the glass and a wedge of pineapple.
May 16, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's in The Patriot Act.
Ya gotta read the fine print.
May 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Pfotenhauer
Do not say her last name very fast.
May 16, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pfotenhauer... isn't that the villain making all those flying robots...? oh wait, that was Totenkopf.
;-)
May 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and liam both have got me rolling on the floor laughing.
May 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And note, too, that foreign policy adviser Nancy Whatsherface evaded the question entirely with her alternately stern and witty range of options.
Of course, if she'd told the truth McCain would have instantly demoted her to "Cunt!"
May 16, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
...When/If Obama wins in the Fall, will the Republican party see a campaign strategy landscape change like the Democrats did this year? If the polling ends up showing that the nation is tired of old school politics and smear campaigns, will we have intelligent political discourse 8+ years from now (that is, until the cycle restarts again in a generation)?
May 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting question. It's not just the prospect of an Obama win but losses in downticket races all across the country. This could be a major Democratic rout. If that happens, what happens to the Republican party and the coalition of fat cats, religious kooks and assorted unbalanced types? Look for a major power struggle to follow.
May 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would they clean house and reshape the entire party leadership if they get wiped out this Fall?
They seem to be incredibly vulnerable already...of course, 90% of my political news comes from this site.
May 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting line of questions, but so as not to hijack this thread, I'll create a separate post.
May 16, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My hoped for outcome is the GOP goes the way of the whigs and the sane moderate paleo-cons form a new party or take the corpse of the GOP party and become a true, reality-based loyal opposition to keep the Democrats honest.
May 16, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you - one party states make me nervous - we need a genuine opposition party. Just like you said - to keep us honest.
May 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blogosphere will do that task!
May 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My hoped for outcome is that the Democrats increase their majorities, and take back the White House.
At this point, I don't give a fuck about the Republican Party. The sane individuals have stood by and let the crazies run the business. Who cares how they'll take back their Party?
May 16, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am registered Independent, I agree and disagree with both paries on a number of party platform stances. Since Bush started his administration, however, I have been so disgusted with the Republican party's political "machine" that I can't, with clear conscience, allow anyone related to that system to garner my support. I would be very, very happy to see a 3rd party emerge, or even a stronger Republican party. Stronger in respects to ethics, morals, intelligence, commonsense, etc. I harbored a distaste for the Dems for that timeframe as well, but mostly because they were weak. They lacked a clear image, voice, etc.
One of the most unfortunate results of the MSM and the modern political process is that the Office of the POTUS has lost its prestige. When I was a kid, my friends and I wanted to be President or the starting CF for the Cardinals. It's rare to hear a little kid want to be president anymore. It's embarassing.
Talk about "Hope" and "Change"... I only hope that Obama can help change the current state of our government.
/end brain dump
May 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, McCain wants to lie down with Hamas in a bed of roses? That's what "deal" with them means?
May 16, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think he wants to get layed in a bed of roses with Hamas.
He can't, of course, Bob Dole stole all of his viagra. Poor guy.
May 16, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ewww.
It's Friday, 'innit...
;p
May 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it is, and after 3 ocklock on Friday's I am usually incapable of generating anything without snark.
It's a flaw of mine, I'll own up to it.
Sorry for the images you experienced...
May 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ok. I understand. My snarkfield kicks in around 4:00 PM everyday. Have to work twice as hard to produce anything other than snark after that. Some days can be a real challenge. Need lots of tea to be serious, however, peers and colleagues accept.
May 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he wants to pull a train in a bed of roses with Hamas, since there's more than one of them.
;)
May 16, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
I was about to type GMTA... but in this case it might be DMTA.
;-)
May 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm
Put's an all new spin on the "negotiate from a position of strength" line, which might include PVC and safe words... as far as I know.
May 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now the McCain camp has moved from pandering (the gas tax) to parsing.
I guess that makes sense given the staggering number of flip-flops McSame has gone through. Expect more of the same.
May 16, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone have any background on McCain's foreign policy team? I've never heard of Nancy, so I'm curious about her ideological background.
May 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In answer to your question might I just sing the following:
Bomb, bomb, bomb,,,
bomb, bomb Iran...
May 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"From bombing to a bed of roses"?
?
I'm guessing that Ms. Potentator might not be the go-to spokesperson on this issue for too much longer...
May 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we stop calling it flip/flopping whenever someone changes their stance on an issue?
It allows for someone that learns from their mistakes (i.e Obama and the gas tax) vulnerable to the same label as someone that changes their position to pander to a group (i.e McCain and...everything evidently). Can we agree to categorize the two seperately?
May 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The un-talked about part of this whole flap is what it's done to Clinton's campaign. She's no longer part of the news. We're officially in the general election. This is Obama vs. McCain.
http://thinmansblog.blogspot.com/
May 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Dealing can be anything from bombing to a bed of roses," said Pfotenhauer.
To facilitate this end I propose the creation of a bomb which, upon detonation, provokes not combustion but rather the growth of a bed of roses at the detonation point. Hm, you think I could get a SBIR for this idea?
May 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like they used on Spock in that Start Trek movie?
Didn't they call that "the Genesis Bomb" or something?
May 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will carpet bomb Iran into the 21st century with magic ponies.
May 16, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would they clean house and reshape the entire party leadership if they get wiped out this Fall?
They seem to be incredibly vulnerable already...of course, 90% of my political news comes from this site.
May 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the repeat post that you were looking for...*waves hand*
May 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's an RNC hack (former "Chief Economist" at the RNC) promoted by Bush and Ashcroft.
That should tell you all you need to know.
May 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, where is McBush? Obama just has chellenged him for a debate, what's his respond? Is he hiding behind his "advisors"? Anytime and anywhere, man, come on, bring it on!
May 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting McBush watch. tic tac tic tac....
don't be such an old man, take the chellenge, Johnny.
May 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
First he'll bomb them and then offer them a bed of roses.
Will the roses be wild roses, yellow roses or red roses and what of the thorns?
Will the roses be American or English or Asian?
May 16, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That fits! The cycle of the abuser. Beat em up and then show em some love!
May 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Deal with", how? Another 100 year occupation, after we've "dealt with" Iran?
May 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I understand why this administration and previous administrations has such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice. BUT it's a new reality in the Middle East."
BUT.
The key word is "but"...
This will be fun to see McCain wiggle his way out of this.
Of course, Obama needs to keep repeating he WON'T talk to Hamas, they don't have any power anyway, we need to talk to Iran, the real power in the middle-east and get out of Iraq.
This is going to be fun.
May 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait = no! He means he'll bomb the beds of roses - the Persian roses.
May 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he lost his bearings and thinks its still 1980 and that he wants Ronnie to bomb Rose Kennedy.
May 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it!
Right after the League of Nations meets to discuss Haile Selassie!
May 16, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that will only work if Czechoslovakia is onboard.
May 16, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not the Sudetenland. We're giving that to Hitler ...
...that and a bed of roses!
"Eva! Come quickly! There's a thorn in my tiny penis!"
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 16, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's!!!:
May 16, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
God I truly despise the TPM commenting system... one more time:
It's!!!...
May 16, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course anyone with a 6th grade reading comprehension level can clearly see that McCain meant negotiate.
In other words, this parsing will work well among his base.
May 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. We now need a word to "call out" nonsensical McShamisms.
If MsSame (that was an error... but hey, why not?) makes statements that defy, undermine, and obliterate logic, they are McShamisms.
Ban McShamism. Ban speech which destroys logic! Do not succumb to nonsense!
May 16, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be the first time that a candidate has complained that someone has taken his words IN context. Jamie Rubin is suggesting that McCain used deal in the sense of (1) "I'll deal with you later" rather than (2) "Let's make a deal." However, the context, while admittedly uttered in murkiest McCain-speak, clearly means to say that Hamas has democratic legitimacy and that we're going to have to comport ourselves toward them accordingly, regardless of their past history of violence, etc. That's the new reality McCain is referring to. It's not enough for Jamie Rubin to point out the ambiguity of the word deal. She has to show how the context either leaves the word ambiguous or slants its meaning in the direction of (1). I don't think she can plausibly do either.
May 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Jamie Rubin should be Nancy Pfotenhauer.
May 17, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad it means "bombing," too. Because I was worried there for a minute that McCain actually thought that we shouldn't bomb someone.
May 16, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain.
Pull a train.
'Scuse me while I hurl.
Violently.
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 16, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember Israel didn't want election in the first place...Hamas won the USA demand elections is that like the chickens coming home to roost?
May 16, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink