While politics and strategy interests me a great deal, discourse analysis bores me. (I just survived a semester of it… *shudder*). So I really don’t care about Curtis’ motivations in themselves.

You’re correct of course that I doubt my own ideas, and I am grateful for the work Cutis and others do in attempting to overturn them. This is true whether those opinions are posted on other blogs where I might read them, or on this blog as part of a give-and-take exchange.

Relatedly, two comments are being held for moderating pending Curtis’ resumption of this dialog [1]. (Obviously, all free to ignore give-and-take, and most other constraints of respectful dialog, on their own sitse.)

You misrepresent both my positions and McCain’s history, but as you previously mentioned adding things easy to “jump on” [2], I’ll assume these are meaningless distractions and not address them.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/06/criticism-begging-criticism.html#comment-83642
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/06/criticism-begging-criticism.html#comment-84226

Did he intend to open discourse to people familiar with warfare theory, or did he intend to open discourse with the blog-browsing general public? If you make a difficult requirement of this discourse, that one must get into the head of the public figure and reason out unknowns that may only be conjecturable based on published or recorded statements, then I don’t think it unreasonable that you provide documentation that Curtis intended one particular thing or another in his post.

A frequent debate tactic that I use is to pose some unanswerable or unlikely to be performed challenge to my competitor. Mike frequently experiences this while rock climbing with me. Mike posited that he’d claimed earlier a certain section of rock was climbable, while I claimed that it was not, at least at our skill level. Upon inspection from another angle, I see that he is probably right, so I reframe the discussion. I now say “Fine, you go climb it, and I’ll believe you,” knowing full well he cannot a.) climb it alone and b.) is too lazy to prove me wrong. In effect, I’ve won the debate.

In the case of Curtis v TDAXP, I might with cowardice and aplomb accuse you of using my tactics. I think you yourself may harbor some doubts about McCain’s rationality or intentions, and rather than argue the merits of the discussion, you’ve sent Curtis on a multi-hour multi-website multi-boring task of gathering transcripts from a compilation of video clips. Since Curtis is a reasonable guy with better things to do, he is unlikely to jump through your hoops, and in effect, you’ve won.

Determining whether McCain meant X or Y on a variety of statements would be the work of a biographer and I doubt Curtis is willing to put in the effort to document McCain’s motivations and scholarly/intellectual prowess, just to continue a debate I don’t believe either of you are entirely wrong on. Hence my ground-giving that Senators are intelligent and capable and don’t get where they are by accident. I would say that John McCain is well-versed in warfare theory. But I would also agree with Curtis’ intentions in posting, that he is capable of changing tune as political winds push.

For example, McCain was clearly on the side of intelligence and reason when he claimed the President was not allowed to break the law. Now that he must secure the vote of the paranoid and bigoted (the currently skeptical block of the Republican party) he is jumping aboard the pro-wiretapping, pro-telecom-amnesty, pro-strong-executive, irrationally-anti-Islam train. To debate me on this opinion, will you require that I document all divulgences of McCain’s theories of checks and balances and his thoughts on Constitutional law, perhaps requiring that I go into his service record and vet the credentials of his political science instructors at the Naval Academy. It is very likely I’d concede that I’m wrong on this topic, rather than do all that stuff. But winning the debate isn’t the point, having the discussion itself is. So I’m just saying don’t be so unreasonable in discussing with Curtis and he’s likely to come back, which I know you’d prefer to the alternative.

And finally, Curtis, I don’t think you need defending. I just got involved with this because I found the topic debatable myself. And I’m extremely entertained by TDAXP’s transition from “Obama will probably be a pretty good president” to “Obama will be a disaster of biblical proportion” and his sudden embrace of John McCain. Since he isn’t being paid to shill for the party like so many of his journalistic peers (aside from occasional pizza bribes) I’m finding his descent into pseudo-madness, i.e. McCain support, rather interesting.

And yes, that was a throwaway statement. I actually will celebrate the election of either candidate with beer and pizza, as has become traditional.

Many thanks for your kind words, and my sympathy for your life under your cruel slumlord.

I am a skeptical of claims I disagree with. I want to tear them down. That way, I know that those that stand are good beliefs I want for myself.

This blog has been very useful for that, as its socially more acceptably in blog-reality than in real-life to openly disagree with people when they make an assertion you disagree with.

That said, I think you are assuming that I am claiming more than I am claiming…

While Dan seems to be quite sure that McCain is talking about different aspects and memes of war (short v long, xGW v yGW) when he seems to adopt different positions, I don’t think that comes across to someone voting for/against him who may see it as inconsistency.

The title of this post is a pun on begging the question, which is what Curtis’ complaint does. To believe his attack on McCain, one needs to also accept another attack: that McCain is ignorant of war theory. Likewise, to praise McCain for sophisticated comments on the war, one needs to believe another praise: that McCain is familiar with war theory. If one is not willing to praise before praise or blame before blame, then one should be left with silence, neither praising nor criticizing McCain until one is sure if he is ignorant or knowledgeable of war theory.

So, was McCain’s statements examples of speaking of different aspects of war or an inconsistency? Until you can demonstrate McCain’s knowledge of war one way or the other, we are left with a simple answer: I don’t know.

Curtis,

I enjoyed reading your recent metadiscursive comments. Feel free to resume the substance of conversation by answering the questions put to you (or, alternatively, by retracting your original claims) at any time.

you weren’t looking to change the subject of the debate to the substance of each preceding argument each time the floor is given.

Lol, that is a prescient characterization and not one I was entirely conscious of experiencing at the time when writing some of my comments; so yes there was a kind of un-preparedness. The hope and the expectation (even if unrealistic) was always for some kind of forward movement, toward understanding or agreement or even revelation, even if those were never going to be achieved. Instead, there was static, constantly repeating loop: lots of loopiness, to be sure.

My second and third paragraphs come in support of your claim that while Mr. McCain may have had a nuanced statement/position with caveats both spoken and implied, the average voter isn’t going to come along with the assumptions. While Dan seems to be quite sure that McCain is talking about different aspects and memes of war (short v long, xGW v yGW) when he seems to adopt different positions, I don’t think that comes across to someone voting for/against him who may see it as inconsistency.

So Dan might be tempted to say “Obviously, McCain is speaking about aspect X in this clip, and obviously is talking about aspect Y in this conflicting clip” the populace might not see those as obvious.

I didn’t intend to imply that you weren’t informed, I just meant that it seems to me through the back and forth that Dan is quick to ask for significant citation while casually dismissing topics or points he doesn’t agree with. I think that comes from the fact that he is typically well-informed on most positions, specifically those he espouses This debate self-selection is something I think we all do, I just caution Dan that he can go too far at times with it and that his blog is healthier with agreement and dissent than with standard-bearing and dismissal. When I say you came unprepared, I should maybe elaborate to say “you weren’t looking to get into a debate, and if you were, you weren’t looking to change the subject of the debate to the substance of each preceding argument each time the floor is given.” I felt in reading the lengthy back-and-forth that the substance wasn’t being argued so much as the argument was being argued, and I don’t feel that informs the participants or lurkers.

It wasn’t profanity. But it was a pointer back to a point, and even it’s deletion was a “case in point.” And btw, the only reason I’m writing complete sentences now is that I want my comment commenting on your comment to reach your eyes before a quick censorship from the venerable tdaxp.

Incidentally, as far as coming to the debate well-armed goes, I didn’t instigate the debate but merely made a quick posting to my own blog which was not intended to be a thesis paper (as, indeed, most blog posts to blogs are not!) The observations or quicky post was pounced upon by the venerable tdaxp, and the debate was on.

Curiously absent from the entire debate is any evidence, citation, etc., that would support the opinion of the venerable tdaxp; rather, merely opinion, guessing, and standard partisan one-shots were offered. Being well-armed should not equate with being well-stubborn in opinion.

I think Curtis was quick to jump on an internet meme that made the rounds on our side. I think the video itself does what FOX has made millions doing, condensing important topics into emotional one-offs. As an aspiring pragmatist v. an emotional first-responder, I know many of the clips from the video are out of context and cherry-picked for the viewers’ benefit. Therefore I will not make my decision for President based on clips like these, but instead by reading the candidates’ positions on their websites, and as time and budget allow, their books. “Our Plan for America” led me to vote for and financially support Kerry/Edwards in 2004 over “Financially Destroying Every Company and Baseball Team I Touch But Kerry Love Gays” by Bush/Rove.

We know that in 98% of cases, getting into the Senate requires finesse and competence and not simple rhetoric and irrational backlash against a competent and actually-capable-of-shooting-lightning-bolts Senate Minority Leader, and that obviously Mr. McCain to Mrs. Snowe thought of most aspects and implications of an invasion/system patch. Obviously many supporters on both sides and dozens of think-tanks, bloggers, PhDs and guys with soul patches and hemp sandals tried to foresee the implications of such an action and some could/did and some could not/didn’t. The beauty and rub of our system of governance is that the guy who understands PISSR and 4GW and FAQ and LRM and arrows that point to themselves is that he only gets one vote and the guy who says “Obama gon’ take my guns! John McCain’s as good as a liberal! I’m votin’ for Barr!” also gets one vote. The same could be true of the guy who has written a bestselling book on Amazon and spends many a Berry-Weiss fueled evening pondering the nuances of world affairs only gets one vote versus a guy who lives under the whim of a cruel slumlord and spends more time tightening bicycle chains than reading NRO or the Atlantic.

I think Curtis came to the argument unprepared, but I think you can be either unintentionally very lawyerly and dismissive, or too caught up in being on the perceived-to-you-correct side of the argument, and try to debate the debate rather than the subject. I assume Curtis’ final comment was profanity and the Eject button, but please keep in mind that those of us willing to debate you must be handled with the understanding that we’re here for a discussion, not abuse.

I often find writing papers that it’s hard to take generalized knowledge and translate it into credited, annotated quotations or citations. I know Delta/ComAir suffered a catastrophic system meltdown around Christmas of a few years ago, and that it was caused by an aged and oversubscribed computer system. So when I went to write a paper about it, it took the better part of an afternoon and Lexis/Nexis plus the Augie library to properly cite it. You have an impressive command of many of the issues that are making people stand up and get involved in politics, even when you ignore or refuse to acknowledge some points you don’t agree with. Just be careful that you don’t chase off the armchair debaters and dabblers/enthusiasts or you’ll find yourself with an empty bike shop and no one to shoot the shit with. We didn’t come to the debate to be sent off on a transcript scavenger hunt.

As an intellectual exercise, I’ve littered this post with things you’d likely jump on while ignoring the overall theme of my post. My thinking is that you’ve been reading up to this point, ready to attack on some of those points, while leaving the greater idea, that is, to play nice with your readers and friends, aside. I know that you’re honest enough to acknowledge it, at least to yourself, as well. We like to come and participate and now and again, we think “Got him!”. I’d just request you aren’t so frustrating and smug getting us around to thinking “nope, outmaneuvered again”

I’m sorry you’ve abandoned the give-and-take of discourse.

I look forward to resuming this conversation when you are prepared to answer questions when asked them. (It seems this may have to wait until your answer will not embarrass your position in anyway — that is, it will not provide “ammo” to someone who disagrees with you.)

An example, your latest:

Thus, you need to demonstrate that the context you presume is right,

I provided full transcripts! Lol. But you began to intuit, or guess, or presume or assume a “short war” that McCain had somewhere in his mind when he said the victory would be quick once GWB was authorized to go to war and went to war, and a “long war” when he later said he knew at the time of the vote that the war would be long and tough. These are things you have added to the evidence that I presented; indeed, they are entirely your concoctions, nowhere to be found in those transcripts!

Another example:

CGW: In any case neither you nor I know what McCain knows about either subject.

Dan: Therefore, you should retreact your original criticism of McCain.

When one uses the term “therefore”, usually it signifies agreement, especially in a case like this where the user delivers a normative assessment. If you agree that neither of us knows what McCain knows about either subject, then your whole experience-based defense of McCain falls flat and is shown to be the wishful thinking (a “too cleverness”) of a partisan.. But I suspect that that feature of the term “therefore”, that use of your rhetoric, is meaningless to you; the real point is the normative assessment which becomes a command. So it’s about winning the argument, indeed trying to force a win, not about coming to any sort of understanding (mutual or otherwise.)

Thus, I cannot take your exhortation (or is it a command?) that I respond to your questions seriously.