« Come back when you're ready to behave | Main | When last we saw them... »
Friday, 05 January 2007
Yet another reason to like McCain
While The State is chronicling the rather comprehensive S.C. support that John McCain has garnered (something mentioned on this blog in the past), Vanity Fair offers the following:
In the 2000 campaign, (McCain) waded straight into the hottest controversy in South Carolina, not long before his crucial primary showdown with George W. Bush, by offering his unvarnished opinion on whether the Confederate battle flag -- the Stars and Bars -- should continue to fly over the state capitol. "As we all know, it's a symbol of racism and slavery," McCain said. After John Weaver and others did more than whisper in his ear, McCain took to reading aloud from a piece of paper with a statement that began, "As to how I view the flag, I understand both sides," and went downhill from there.
For better or worse, McCain's campaign was never the same again. And no one is more aware of this than John McCain himself. In Worth the Fighting For, his second memoir, written with his longtime aide Mark Salter in 2002, McCain reflected on what he had done:By the time I was asked the question for the fourth or fifth time, I could have delivered the response from memory. But I persisted with the theatrics of unfolding the paper and reading it as if I were making a hostage statement. I wanted to telegraph to reporters that I really didn't mean to suggest I supported flying the flag, but political imperatives required a little evasiveness on my part. I wanted them to think me still an honest man, who simply had to cut a corner a little here and there so that I could go on to be an honest president.
I think that made the offense worse. Acknowledging my dishonesty with a wink didn't make it less a lie. It compounded the offense by revealing how willful it had been. You either have the guts to tell the truth or you don't. You don't get any dispensation for lying in a way that suggests your dishonesty.
Everyone has sinned; everyone has fallen short of the mark. McCain gets my admiration by setting forth his faults in an unvarnished manner, and telling us -- in a way that we can hold him accountable -- that he considers them to be totally unacceptable.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 11:00 AM in Character, Elections, John McCain, Kulturkampf, Leadership, South Carolina, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00d83509c35469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Yet another reason to like McCain:
Comments
Maybe 1 reason to like him but then:
Immigration
Campaign Finance Reform
Taxes
Gun Control
Abortion
He may do better running as a Democrat really. But I like his Iraq strategy.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 5, 2007 1:16:38 PM
My list of reasons to oppose John McCain:
His support for increasing troop strength in Iraq, a position held by 11% of all Americans (the stupid 11%).
His age. He'll be 72 in 2008.
His enabling of the president on the torture issue.
Posted by: bud | Jan 5, 2007 1:34:12 PM
Perhaps I'm just too cynical but McCain's personal "reflection" could just be a well thought-out ploy to win the hearts and minds of folks like Brad. Folks who are suckers for this type of self-depracting story that, in their own minds, justifies their pre-determined support for a given candidate. I'm sure if Ned Lamont or Howard Dean had the same "reflection" Brad would dismiss it as a cynical ploy.
Posted by: bud | Jan 5, 2007 3:44:53 PM
That is one of the most astonishing examples of selective quoting that I have ever seen. The sentence JUST BEFORE the section that Warthen quotes is this:
"If this awkward little day of straddling feels familiar, it is because McCain has tried it before."
The passage leading up to the section Warthen quotes is about McCain engaging in the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR that he engaged in during his campaign in South Carolina, and that he decries in his autobiography.
Now, what I want to know about Warthen is this: WHAT motivated him to quote material that seemed to support the conclusion he wanted to draw, while leaving out of his quote important material that undercut his conclusion?
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 5, 2007 4:59:04 PM
Mary:
Because he is a Left-Of-Lenin liberal.
Brock
Posted by: Brock Townsend | Jan 5, 2007 11:19:33 PM
This post seals it. What would it take for Brad to opt against McCain? Would McCain have to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy in bed-- on the capitol mall at noon?
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jan 6, 2007 8:12:50 AM
Mary, Brad appears to be motivated by some illogical lust for continuing in a failed military misadventure. He's convinced himself, against all the evidence, that we can somehow create a stable, democratic Iraq. (As you've pointed out many times this effort doesn't include any personal sacrifice.) Any tidbit that puts a good light on candidates that favor continuing the endless quagmire is thrown at us in an attempt to justify what is clearly a failed policy. I want to move on from this endless discussion of Iraq but the warmongers continue to remind those of us in the sane majority how tragic this situation really is.
John Edwards has dubbed the so-called "Surge" policy the McCain doctrine. Good for him. Let's wrap this idiotic plan around his neck for the whole world to see and smell.
Posted by: bud | Jan 6, 2007 8:22:50 AM
"ny tidbit that puts a good light on candidates that favor continuing the endless quagmire is thrown at us in an attempt to justify what is clearly a failed policy."
OK, I'll give you that, but even that can't explain this particular manifestation of that attitude. I mean, this isn't even a tidbit. It's a piece that points to the EXACT OPPOSITE CONCLUSION from the conclusion Warthen draws from it. He has to distort and misrepresent the article in order to use it to support his conclusion. Yet he LINKS to the article, so that anyone who reads it can see it as it is, and can tell that Warthen is distorting it.
Is Warthen simply so enamored of his own viewpoint that he doesn't understand that misrepresenting facts in such an obvious way undermines his arguments, rather than supporting them? Is he so full of self-importance that he believes that he can change reality by his characterization of it?
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 6, 2007 12:01:51 PM
I think he does it just to piss you off Mary. It's his pastime, and besides, you're fun to watch when you get all lathered up. Ed
Posted by: Ed | Jan 6, 2007 4:34:47 PM
By the way, I hate John McCain...it seems funny to be on the same side as the peaceniks and communists in this bunch, but I hate him just the same. I think he's a charlatan. He's old as dirt. And he masterminded the "gang of fourteen" in order to defuse the so-called nuclear option regarding supreme court nomineees. This abomination needlessly diluted presidential powers and weakened the constitution...which of course is nothing new for McCain, he gave us McCain-Feingold, again a needles abridgement of free speech rights. One thing he did do, was expose Lindsey Graham as the snake in the grass that HE is. I hate him too. Ed
Posted by: Ed | Jan 6, 2007 4:42:27 PM
Ed, if you call pointing out facts "getting all lathered up," I think that tells us something important about you.
We gain further insight into this when we see that you refer to the "dilution of presidential power" and the "weakening of the constitution". The fact is that the "nuclear option" involved simply ignoring the rules of the Senate. The Senate rules require a 2/3 vote for any change; the "nuclear option" consituted a violation of the rules in order to obtain a political advantage. This fact is easy to verify, but it would appear that you care more about clinging to your viewpoint than in taking any steps to dispel the ignorance on which that viewpoint is based.
And I have to protest you using the epithet "communist" to refer to persons other than youself. You come from a state that exists primarily as a repository for federal handouts. Certainly it makes no net contribution to the welfare of the United States. You and other South Carolinians receive $1.38 in services and handouts for every $1.00 you "pay" in federal taxes. The shortfall is made up by people like me, who pay more in federal taxes than we receive in federal services.
If you can't show gratitude to the liberals who pay the taxes that finance the handouts on which you live, can you at least refrain from pretending that YOU pay for the support of anyone else?
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 6, 2007 6:37:38 PM
Is Warthen simply so enamored of his own viewpoint that he doesn't understand that misrepresenting facts in such an obvious way undermines his arguments, rather than supporting them? Is he so full of self-importance that he believes that he can change reality by his characterization of it?
Yes and Yes.
Add in an astounding ignorance of current events plus an inability for critical analysis and you've got Brad in a nutshell.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jan 7, 2007 12:28:34 AM
From Keith Olbermann's Countdown (Jan. 4):
[...] Senator John McCain of Arizona told us today that he knew that the war in Iraq was, "probably going to be long and hard and tough," and that he was sorry for anybody who voted for it that thought it would be some kind of an easy task.
Senator McCain, on CNN, on September 24th, 2002, "I believe that the success will be fairly easy."
Senator McCain on CNN on September 29th, 2002, "We‘re not going to have a blood letting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies."
Senator McCain on this network on January 22nd, 2003, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily."
What‘s that called again, flip flopping?
Senator, we keep all the tapes of these interviews, come on. Senator John McCain of Arizona, both of him, today‘s Worst Persons in the World.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jan 7, 2007 1:12:09 AM
Mary, you are a one note samba. I KNOW this has got to be at least the tenth time you've trotted out the tired old talking point that we in SC are dirtbags because we get a buck thiry eight for every buck we send to Washington. My answer to you is hey, tough sh*t! Sounds like you liberals in whatever sorry, cold, high-tax northern state you're from need to elect better representatives so you can get more more of the pie, if it means all that much to you...and surely it does, as you bring it up at every possible friggin' opportunity. Sheesh! What an insufferable liberal twit! Can you mix it up a little? You know...find something else to rant on? Surely there are other things you don't like about us. Ed
Posted by: Ed | Jan 7, 2007 10:09:37 AM
Ed, you wrong me. I do not MIND the fact that I pay extra taxes to keep you from starving. I understand that the reason citizens of South Carolina and the other conservative states are unable to pay their fair share is that they simply don't have the capability of earning enough to support themselves, so it is up to those of us who are more industrious to support them. I realize that the conservative policies of South Carolina have led to an undereducated, less capable populace that is unable to compete in the modern technological society in which we find ourselves, and therefore are dependent to a large extent on the charity of citizens in states whose liberal policies have produced a vibrant, educated, high-earning population.
I endorse this charity, and am glad to make my share of the required charitable contributions. What I sort of object to is the lack of gratitude, and what I object to even more is the idea, promoted by some conservatives, that THEY contribute to welfare payments that go to OTHERS.
I am NOT asking you to pay your own way. That won't be possible until South Carolina adopts liberal policies and those liberal policies have been in place for some years, long enough to produce a population with the indutry and initiative to support itself.
I am not even asking for gratitude. All that I'm asking is that you quit complaining about "communism", since YOU and your fellow conservatives are the beneficiary of whatever "communist" policies are in place.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 7, 2007 10:53:41 AM
Mary, this is the part you don't get - "in the modern technological society in which we find ourselves". We didnt get to this point accidentally, this happened due to the sweat and intellect and hard work of capitalists. And now people like you are working hard to punish the successes of American capitalism. Microsoft, Walmart, Exxon, Halliburton to name a few. We are a society of makers and takers, and the Democrats are good at taking assets from others and conductiving give-away programs to get votes. That basic conflict is at the core of difference between conservatives and liberals.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 7, 2007 11:40:00 AM
Dave, you just keep telling yourself that Microsoft, Walmart, Exxon and Halliburton are promoting the general welfare and maybe you can convince yourself it's true. But in fact the these companies are just in it for their greedy selves to the detriment of the hard-working people of America.
Because of the corporate welfare policies promoted by the right these dinosaur companies continue to suck the life out of our economy by squashing smaller and much more efficient companies.
Microsoft exploits it's monopoly position to peddle it's increasingly complex and inefficient software. Walmart exploits it's workers in a shameless effort to corner the retail market. Exxon and the other oil company behemoths dominate domestic energy policy thanks to it's cozy relationship with high ranking elected officials, including the president and vice president. The result is soaring gas prices, war and slow development of alternative energy sorces. In a truly competitive free-market world with competitive bidding Halliburton would have ceased to exist years ago.
It really is a shame that so many Americans fall for the sham policies promoted by the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Thanks to this greedy thinking, America's dominate roll in the world's economy is fading. Hopefully the new congress and the next president can reverse this trend by promoting real solutions to America's economic problems and not just continuing failed agenda of the corporate welfare elite.
Posted by: bud | Jan 7, 2007 12:57:17 PM
Dave, you make the claim that "people like me are working hard to punish the successes of capitalism" without providing any support or evidence for the assertion. Once again, you are unwilling to actually do the work of marshaling facts supporting your viewpoint.
I don't deny that capitalism has produced some notable successes, but I do deny that Democrats are out to punish capitalism for its success, and I contend that the weight of the evidence belies your assertion that Republicans are "makers" and Democrats are "takers". After all, you and your fellow conservatives live off handouts paid for by the taxes of Democrats.
If Republicans are the foundation of America's prosperity, can you name some contribution originating from South Carolina, which is, after all, one of the states where Republican and conservative values are most widely adhered to?
I have to disagree, too, with your proposition that Walmart is a picture of capitalist success. Walmart's "success" comes in large part from the availability of public benefit payments available to its workers and its customers. If Walmart's workers didn't have access to public benefits, Walmart wouldn't be able to maintain its low wage work force, and its customers wouldn't be able to buy many of its products. Far from being a capitalist success story, Walmart is simply a locus for the collection of welfare benefits.
Wal-mart's prices don't really provide that much benefit, because they come at the cost of inferior quality goods and inferior service. Or as I like to put it, Walmart is a chain of trash stores, full of trashy merchandise, for trashy customers.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 7, 2007 1:35:37 PM
I don't buy it Mary...I don't see demographic numbers that indicate people are moving in droves to liberal meccas like yours so that they can enjoy the privilege of higher taxes and paying the way for dirtbags like us in SC. In fact, just the opposite, people are bailing out of hellholes like yours and have been for years, in order to get to places like Florida and Texas and Tennessee...and...yes even South Carolina! That's right Mar, people say good riddance to the state you are in to get to places like Texas and Florida which don't tax them so tyrannically. Why, they even leave you to come here, where we DO tax ridiculously, Cindi Ross-Scoppe notwithstanding. Wonder why that is, Mary?
Posted by: Ed | Jan 7, 2007 1:55:28 PM
Since a lot of McCain's appeal may ride on whether his proposed strategy for Iraq is workable, here is a very recent article on the source of problems there over the last four years: http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/pollack/20061214.htm
Anyone who wants to comments on the merits of proposed Iraq strategies ought to do themselves a favor and read this article.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Jan 7, 2007 4:29:54 PM
Ed, I'm willing to concede that South Carolina may be the focus of a great deal of illegal immigration, due to the prevalence of low-skilled, low wage jobs, giving it significant population growth as a result. But that has nothing to do with what I was saying, which is that South Carolinians such as yourself are dependent on handouts paid for by the federal taxes of liberals. And, further, that we don't really mind financing the handouts, which are needed to keep our fellow Americans from starving.
Your somewhat disjointed remarks about state taxes have nothing to do with the point I was making, which is concerned with FEDERAL taxes versus FEDERAL expenditures. Federal tax rates are the same throughout the United States; the reason that citizens of liberal states pay higher federal taxes than do citizens of conservative states is that they earn more. The reason federal taxes collected from citizens of conservative states are insufficient to finance federal expenditures in those states is that citizens of conservative states don't have the initiative and industry to allow them to earn enough to pay for their own needs, so that the federal government must turn to the more industrious and prosperous citizens of liberal states.
As a final aside, South Carolina has a relatively high tax RATE among states. If it experiences lower tax collections, that is becuase there is less income available from which to pay taxes, due to the status of the South Carolina workforce as relatively uneducated and low paid.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Jan 7, 2007 9:07:44 PM
Mary you are a hopeless nut. Have you ever been to SC Mary? Where is the evidence of all this government largesse you say we get? Further, do you really want to stake whatever credibility you think you have on a statement like "citizens of conservative states don't have the initiative and industry to allow them to earn enough to pay for their own needs...?" I have ignored you for a long time, but today I thought I'd take a chance on you...you know, new year goodwill and all. But I am sorry now that I failed to ignore you today, and will resume doing so forthwith. You're an obnoxious nut Mary, and you are back on my ignore-with-gusto list. Ed
Posted by: Ed | Jan 7, 2007 9:45:54 PM
Ed, you seem to be confirming Mary's opinion of lazy, conservative South Carolinians.
Rather than rebut Mary's criticisms that you find unfounded and objectionable, you choose to ignore them.
Is that because you're afraid that you can't really debunk them or because you're lazy?
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jan 8, 2007 12:02:37 AM
Undoubtedly, the best way to view capitalism is through the lens of social democracy. Conservative and liberal ideologies are both derivatives of classic liberalism, so neither view adequately explains capitalism today. It’s important to get this right because almost all of our problems are a consequence of capitalism.
Capitalism has certainly been of some benefit to everyone, yet in its entirety, capitalism damages many more people than it helps. Capitalism has also irrevocably damaged our physical environment. There are only two aspects of capitalism that may be considered as being positive today: the concept of divisions of labor (although modern capitalism produces notoriously bad divisions of labor) and monetary exchanges. The most heinous part of capitalism is return on investment (usary), and the most obsolete part of capitalism consists of the market setting value. The fundamental theory of knowledge underlying both capitalism and Enlightenment thinking is untenable by modern standards. The adverse environmental effects (Global Warming, of course) of capitalism are literally going to wipe out much of the human race unless we do something about it soon.
The bad parts of capitalism are so numerous, and the good parts of capitalism are so few, that any only makes sense to create a new kind of economic system-a system where people proportionally benefit by the fruits of their native intelligence, creativity, and labor-a system that does minimum damage to the earth and to the habitat.
Liberalism (i.e., classic liberalism) alone can never offer satisfactory solutions to modern problems because liberalism is based on both an obsolete three hundred and twenty year old political philosophy, and capitalism. The social democratic ideas of the New Deal temporarily saved both liberalism and capitalism, but we’ve retrogressed in the past several decades, and the future indeed looks grim. Perhaps you recently noticed the reports of the chunk of ice (the size of Manhattan!) breaking away from Canada’s far north-that’s what happens when an economic system forces a society to burn through its resources at an exponential rate just to provide minimal sustenance to most of the population while simultaneously shoving the wealth of the nation (and planet) into the hands of a few. We don’t have too much time left to change our ways.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Jan 8, 2007 12:06:51 AM
Mark, look at the environmental landscape of any of the former or present communist(socialist) countries and you will see decimation of the natural resources and pollution way beyond anything the democratic republic societies have experienced. Compare the rivers in America to the rivers in Europe as one example. European rivers are the equivalent of vast sewers. Pitsburgh hosted a BassMasters tournament last year right where the 3 rivers meet to form the Ohio. The Chinese rivers are also dangerously polluted, as were the Soviet Union waterways. Can you say Chernobyl? Your theories are about as wrong as a theory could ever be on the environment.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 8, 2007 6:37:35 AM
