May 22, 2008
McCain Plays Hooky in College Communities
Voters often judge a candidate by what he says. An analysis of candidate travel patterns suggests that voters should also consider where a candidate visits.
The Christian Science Monitor, with backing from the Knight Foundation, has begun a project in which it’s divided U.S. communities into 11 different categories based on the type of voter most prominent in that location.
One finding being reported today is that Democratic front-runner Barack Obama has been showing far more interest in college communities than has his expected opponent, the likely Republican nominee, John McCain.
The tally shows Mr. Obama has made 217 campaign stops across the country since February 1, with 12 percent of them involving college communities. Mr. McCain, on the other hand, visited only one college community among his 132 campaign stops during that same period.
The leading locations for both candidates are big cities and wealthy suburbs. That’s little surprise, since the candidates like to raise money and meet with large groups of voters, the Monitor reported.
The finding on college communities, however, represents the starkest contrast between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, it said. “Obama loves college towns, as would be expected given his base of young enthusiastic supporters,” the newspaper said. “McCain, on the other hand, isn’t likely to show up at the local student union anytime soon.”
Paul Basken | Posted on Thursday May 22, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Obama Aims to Better Coordinate Federal STEM Education Programs
Next: Obama to Address Wesleyan U. Graduates in Kennedy's Place
McCain’s absence from college campuses could easily be caused by the overwhelming hostility of the faculties, which make no effort to hide their political leanings from their impressionalble charges.
— George Warren May 22, 03:26 PM #
Remember, it was a youth who saw that the Emperor had no clothes on. That’s why Madman McCain stays away from colleges.
— marcii May 22, 04:07 PM #
Ditto, George. I would also add that even blogs like this one somehow elicit the craziest comments, and sometimes you wonder whether these are from academics or from some gutter! Unfortunately, that’s another sign of the pervasive influence of the radical left on our college communities.
— joyce May 22, 04:12 PM #
Marcii is a good example of what I’m trying to say. See what I mean, George?
— joyce May 22, 04:14 PM #
Let’s also not forget that Obama is treated as a god on many of these campuses, so he has extra incentive to visit… if only for the screaming, fainting photo ops. I wonder what the average percentage of candidates visiting colleges is over the last few presidential elections.
— George May 22, 04:22 PM #
Marcii, I commend you upon the company who revile you!
— barbara May 22, 04:26 PM #
Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”
But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.
Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”
But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.
Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.
— rose smith May 22, 04:31 PM #
Rose Smith, If you’re going to copy an op-ed from the NY Times (5/22) , you should(a) give credit to Nathan Thrall and Jesse Wilkins and (b) copy all of it.
— k.lee May 22, 06:03 PM #
Right! I do credit them with a dose of reality!! Go read the Times today!!
— rose smith May 22, 06:11 PM #
I guess I should emulate the Bush/McCain behavioral principle in my own behavior. Therefore, I hereby proclaim that I will no longer participate in academic discussions or in commentaries on articles like this because I am a senior (some say senile) academic of incredible distinction and prestige who wields (or would like to wield) great power. Therefore, I will not deign to converse with those of you whose views differ from mine. You are all terrorists, especially you Republicans.
— Don Langenberg May 22, 06:32 PM #
Frankly, I like thoughtful dissent. Sadly, the thoughtful part is what’s missing in most of these blogs.
Sorry to disappoint you: I’ve never been a Democrat, and I’ve been teased for years by my more liberal colleagues, but I still find most of the respondants on this thread more interested in venting spleen than in engaging in thoughtful discourse.
Maybe, left or right, you could actually think about the piece from which this blog springs and offer some possibilities. Where MIGHT McCain be or feel welcome? What parts of his platform might keep students cold (assuming that’s the case)? Why do so many young people love Barack Obama, and what does that suggest about the way this new generation would like to be governed? I’d truly enjoy hearing you discuss things like that.
Or you can whack me with a rhetorical stick and go along your merry ways.
— angela May 22, 08:09 PM #
A lot of education will tend to make a person progressive…but what about former college professor Dr. Newt Gingrich ? There’s an exception for ya.
— Tina May 22, 09:44 PM #
I am a Vietnam War veteran, U.S. Navy—1967-1973. I would rather vote for Ronald McDonald than John “McSame” McCain! He told supporters not long ago that the U.S. might be in Iraq for 100 years. Then, back-pedaler McSame back-pedaled and said “5 years.” McSame (as Bush) says we can “win” in Iraq and Osama will be dead. Hummmm, Shrub Brainless has had 7 years to catch Osama and Osama is still on the loose. McSame fails to tell us how he is going to catch Osama. Maybe McSame would like to explain how the U.S. can stop the violence in Iraq when it has been going on for 1,400 years! McSame might like to tell us how Iraq’s oil was supposed to pay for our military stay in the country, BUT HASN’T!!! By last count, over $500 BILLION has been spent (wasted) in Iraq. Maybe McSame, since he knows so much about our military, can tell the American People how the U.S. acquired Saddam Hussein when he was 20 years old and kept him on our payroll into the 1980’s. Maybe John can explain why Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in 1983 and then Congress voted to give Saddam mega-millions for the Iraq-Iran war (that Saddam was losing.) Hey John, why didn’t Daddy Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., take out Saddam in the first Gulf War? That would have saved 12 years of torture and murder. What would have happened if Hitler had been left in power after his military was defeated in WWII? Fianlly, look at the YouTube video of G.W. Bush and McCain and then THROW UP! Bottom line: Vote for McCain and you get McSame (as Bush.) Four more years of Bush militarism, hegemony and who knows how many more DEAD and WOUNDED American troops. McCain is a disaster and will lead this country farther into an abyss of recession and depression—-Goodbye Middle-class! Meanwhile, the Ultra-Rich will laugh all the way to a bank in the Cayman Islands OR just move to Dubai, like Halliburton did!
— Bob May 22, 09:44 PM #
I love the way some of you revert to revisionist history to suit your biased outlook of world events. As tempting as it is folks to pawn off the middle east fires on the Republicans, let’s try to own up to the heavy role of the Democrats in Congress and yes even in the White House, in funding, appeasing and arming certain elements that today are rightfully branded as terrorists. You Monday morning quarterbacks don’t begin to appreciate the exquisite subtleties and nuances involved in foreign policy. I suggest a primer in Advanced International Relations 401.
— joyce May 22, 10:52 PM #
McCain was a real hero and even once had the balls to oppose GWB. Now he has his lips locked tightly on the Bush ass – posssibly the dumbest President we ever had and certainly the most dangerous President in American history – just listen to him speak!
And with him come his incompetent buddies like Bremer and “Brownie” and much smarter thugs like Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales and the truly evil Cheney (how does he survive 4 attacks in a high stress job?)
And, of course the brilliant Scalia but who lives in the 19th century and Thomas who is not sure what century it is and probably yearns for the good pussy he had (or almost).
— AW May 23, 01:03 PM #
To Bob #13 —- The Cost of the war far exceeds your figures —- for your figures do not consider the cost of health care required for the wounded, or the lost earning (and lost tax revenues), owing to the unfortunate injuries suffered by those poor souls subjected to the war (and these costs will be bourne for generations).
The Bush Administration may be the architects of the war —- but let us not forget that it was the Congress which approved the war effort (and has continued to support it vide funding).
Apropos, the issue on hand —- Campus visits, Wonder what Hillary’s percentages are?
The youth —- i.e., the future of the nation is attracted to Obama. But Why? —— Could it be because “they” (the youth) realize that a “Change” is essential; and, that the present is a result of the past actions of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations?
In my opine, the Bush administration has done a good job at tending to the seeds planted by the Clinton administration, and I personally feel that to blame one and praise the other is simply being short-sighted —- Let us not short-shrift the Clinton Administration for planting the seeds —- and let us ensure that the the Bush Administration is fully credited for the fruits we are now offered.
Seeds planted take time to germinate and bear
fruit. —- And, some of the seeds planted during the Clinton years:
Deregulations, Mergers, and the granting of every business
desiderata.
Demolishing Bank Restrictions/Laws created during the depression era
to avoid a possible repeat of the conditions that lead to the Great
Depression —- could the mortgage/credit crises be its fruits?
Introducing the Rendition Program —- Could the torture, and the
loss of the America’s Global Gold Standards on Morality/Ethics be
its fruits?
Redefining Inflation, Creating Arbitrary Figures, and thereby Widening
Income Gap Disparities/Decline of the Middle Class: Adjusting Inflation
numbers by adjusting the basket and weights attached to the items in
the Inflation calculation basket resulted in low inflation figures
—- which in turn lowered Social Security cost of living increases,
Pension increases, etc. —- and, depressed wages to boot.
Employers could say “Good job Joe/Sally I am giving you a 6%
increase”, sounds nice when inflation is declared at 3%. Contrast
aforesaid with “Good job Joe/Sally I am giving you a 6%
increase”, when inflation is declared at 12% —- Could the fruits
of this also been rooted in the fact that inflation is still at
3%-4%; when all it components, housing, healthcare, education, food,
energy, insurance, etc are all galloping along at 12%-15% —- this
redefinition of inflation also has several other economic
ramifications —- inclusive of, the lowering of Govt. outlays and
easing budget deficits. —- i.e.; the fruits are now being borne.
Permitting Creation of Virtual Monopolies —- Exxon-Mobile, Banking
Acquisitions —- 5 Banks controlling 85% of all Credit Cards —-
thereby permitting legal agreements that permit the Banks to make any
changes they so desire even without any rhyme or reason (read the
legal mailer inserts —- the issues of Credit score control and
manipulations undertaken by Banks is another problem)
Seeds of Iraq War —- bombing Iraq to distract attention from other
issues —- Monica, etc. —- See Wag the Dog.
Global Warming —- Rio, Agreeing with the world, but not only not
submitting the agreement for Senate ratification, but also failing to
act on anything to which you agreed, then Kyoto, not doing anything
other than lobbing the ball to the next administration.
The list of actions and the fruits borne is exhaustive, —-
Education (see Pell grant figures 1992-2000), Trade, Welfare Reform,
etc., etc., —- And, of course —- Of course let us not forget the
stock market bubbles, which artificially enhanced the govt. coffers
with short duration tax revenues.
The list is somewhat exhaustive and could go on … However, in fairness, the Bush Administration has out-performed the Clinton Adminstration in tending to business and special interests, has been superb at alienating the world, demostrated the art of incompentence at its best, shown …
Given, the above considerations, is it surprising to find that Obama has the majority support among the potential future intellectuals of this nations —- and, is it not a feather in the cap of the current intellectuals to enable the critical thinking/analysis, abilities which …
— zahid May 24, 11:14 AM #