NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: There have been a number of threads on here about Senator John McCain and whether he should run for President of the US or not. Apparently he's at least considering it. According to this article, he's trying to walk the fine line between abandoning principle and playing to the various Republican political factions. So what do you think, pandering or just politics as usual?


A Man Who Won't Sell His Soul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/index.html)


By David Ignatius
Wednesday, May 3, 2006; Page A23

BRUSSELS -- Sen. John McCain likes the moral high ground, and he takes palpable pleasure in delivering zingers to errant Russians, Iranians and Europeans, as he did at a conference here last weekend. But as the apparent front-runner in the 2008 presidential race, McCain is spending more of his time in the bog of American politics, and it's no picnic.

McCain's critics have accused him of playing a game of political Twister the past few months. When he accepted a speaking invitation from Jerry Falwell, the polarizing prince of the Christian right, liberals saw it as a betrayal of values. When he voted to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent, despite his own past warnings about the country's fiscal mess, budget balancers attacked him as a hypocrite.

When I asked McCain, in between his speeches to the Brussels Forum here, if the criticism bothered him, he answered quietly, "Oh, yeah." He says liberals need to understand that he's not a man of the left, or even the center. "I haven't changed. My record is the same on all issues, which is that of a conservative Republican. Not a liberal Republican, not a moderate Republican." But in the next breath, he lists all the positions he has taken that have made him the darling of centrist Republicans and Democrats, from torture to ethics reform to climate change.

The early question about any presidential candidate is whether he wants the job badly enough to suffer the indignities involved in getting it. In McCain's case, the answer isn't yet clear. He wants it enough to suppress any residual anger over Falwell's role in derailing his 2000 presidential campaign, certainly, but not so much that he can brush off criticism that he's an opportunist for making such expedient political decisions. Some people (Bill Clinton comes to mind) have a knack for making easy compromises on the road to election, but McCain isn't one of them.

"I don't want it that badly," McCain says. "I will continue to do what is right. I will continue to pursue torture, climate change. If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil." He explains: "Every time I did something because I thought it would be politically helpful, it turned out badly." As an example, he cites his waffle during the 2000 South Carolina primary, when he said flying the Confederate flag at the state capitol was a state issue.

The most polarizing issue for the country is the Iraq war. Here, as on other fronts, McCain tries to bridge the extremes. He has been one of the sharpest critics of the administration's strategy in Iraq, arguing loudly since 2003 that there weren't enough U.S. troops to stabilize the country. He voiced the generals' anger at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld long before they went public with their dissent. But at the same time, McCain has backed President Bush and the basic U.S. mission in Iraq. Indeed, he still favors putting in more troops, even though he recognizes that is now "like saying, 'I hope it snows in Gila Bend, Arizona.' " A measure of McCain's loyalty to Bush on Iraq is that he won't rule out becoming secretary of defense if Rumsfeld goes. "I would have to assess where I can be most effective," he said, adding: "It's awfully hard to say no to the president of the United States."

McCain is a walking embodiment of the Catch-22 of presidential politics. To get the nomination, a candidate must appeal to his party's activist wing. But even as he buffs his credentials with the base, the candidate inevitably tarnishes his image with the center. A successful campaign almost requires some fibbing -- the candidate is either less extreme than he's telling his party's base, or more extreme than he's telling the general public. The trick is not to get caught -- not to be too obvious in the tactical compromises that are necessary in the marathon race of a presidential campaign.

Part of McCain's appeal is that he seems to straddle such partisan political calculations. He's the victim of torture who opposes torture, the man caught in the "Keating Five" ethics scandal who insists on reform, the critic of Iraq policy who insists that America must win the war, the conservative who is beloved by moderates. A McCain candidacy, if he makes the formal decision next year to run, will be rooted in his image as a man of principle. But it will also be something of a balancing act -- one that the candidate himself is likely to find uncomfortable.

I think McCain is a man who should seriously consider running on a bipartisan platform. That would certainly get my vote.

I find it hard to find another republican of enough impact to support, and ditto for the democrats.

But remember he's politician ... it's not what they say, it's what they've done and going to do. God knows what compromising he has to do.

He shouldn't run, he'll be 72 in 2008. That's simply too old to become president, even for a single termer.

Reagan became President at about 70 but he had already lost his mind by the midpoint of his second term.

Bush fucked McCain over in 2000 and to be honest, if he had any real credibility, he should have turned his back on him then, as opposed to helping the cretin to get re-elected.

I'd vastly prefer an honest asshole to a spineless, dishonest shill like John McCain. He certainly had the wool pulled over my eyes five years ago, but there's no way I would ever remotely consider supporting the man.

His joke about Chelsea Clinton at the Republican Senate fund-raiser was the final straw...it was a pathetic, unfunny frat boy joke, which insulted a young woman, her father, her mother, and the first female Attorney General of the United States. McCain has proven himself to be more than willing to sell his soul whenever it is most convenient, and he's blown his good-guy cover just a few too many times. He's got zero class and even less credibility.

I'd vastly prefer an honest asshole to a spineless, dishonest shill like John McCain. He certainly had the wool pulled over my eyes five years ago, but there's no way I would ever remotely consider supporting the man.

His joke about Chelsea Clinton at the Republican Senate fund-raiser was the final straw...it was a pathetic, unfunny frat boy joke, which insulted a young woman, her father, her mother, and the first female Attorney General of the United States. McCain has proven himself to be more than willing to sell his soul whenever it is most convenient, and he's blown his good-guy cover just a few too many times. He's got zero class and even less credibility.
I've heard about that joke, but have never heard the joke itself. Can you post it, or provide a link?

I am uneasy with the news over here in Japan of McCain as of late. I'd have to see how much more he plays before I could actually make a decision on him. I like some of what he has to say and what he has done, but then other things...

Bute lately it looks like he has been trying to play to the base, and for a man who made it a policy to stand on his own, that don't look good.

You have to already have sold it to call yourself a conservative Republican when you could actually win an election. McCain sold his soul to the neocons sometime in the past 20 years. If he wanted to win the election, he would stop pandering to the extreme of the extreme, break from the party, and run as an independent. But he can't do that, apparently the cost of getting into politics was his soul and the mark that he will never be able to win a presidential election.

The reality of the situation is this ...if I have a choice between two devils I go with the lesser evil every time . NO one who is ellected to popular office...especially a national election can satisfy the hundreds of million of people he's supposed to represent....if he did he'd have to have a multiple personanity disorder AND be a very good liar ....so you get compromise you form coaltions you make deals and you get the job ...THEN you say FUCK you to all the boobs and do wtf you want ...unless you want two terms ...he being 72....well i think he may be good for a term...but hey you neever know the Democrats may come up with a good pick...it may snow in hell too but you never know ..

He shouldn't run, he'll be 72 in 2008. That's simply too old to become president, even for a single termer.

Reagan became President at about 70 but he had already lost his mind by the midpoint of his second term.

Bush fucked McCain over in 2000 and to be honest, if he had any real credibility, he should have turned his back on him then, as opposed to helping the cretin to get re-elected.
i agree. he is just too old. besides why would we want another conservative republican president now. 8 years has been enough of a disaster

its sad that things like opposing torture should even need to be mentioned. the republican party needs a giant smack upside the head for bringing this country to such a point. maybe then they'll start some real reform.

I used to like McCain. Then I realized his whole "I'm moderate and bi-partisan" thing was bullshit. Unless I'm mistaken, he's considered to be one of the most conservative members of the Senate. The man will go on Meet the Press and talk about how something needs to be done about something Bush fucked up on, but then he'll go make a speech saying people should write in Bush's name in 08, even though he can't run again, to show solidarity. Then there was the Keating Five, back in the 80s. Fuck McCain.

I've heard about that joke, but have never heard the joke itself. Can you post it, or provide a link?

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."


Tried to find a paper you would "believe"

There is a reference in the middle of the article.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/26/Floridian/Bestseller_trampled_u.shtml

The man has no honor.....

Bring back the Consuls :p

The you can have one Rep, one Dem and a huge show every time they disagree on anything.

Score one to everyone.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."


Tried to find a paper you would "believe"

There is a reference in the middle of the article.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/26/Floridian/Bestseller_trampled_u.shtml

The man has no honor.....
i dont think that one cruel and tasteless joke disqualifies him for the presidency. if he said it over and over again it might mean something but a one time shot that he apologized for just isnt enough.

I'd vastly prefer an honest asshole to a spineless, dishonest shill like John McCain. He certainly had the wool pulled over my eyes five years ago, but there's no way I would ever remotely consider supporting the man.

His joke about Chelsea Clinton at the Republican Senate fund-raiser was the final straw...it was a pathetic, unfunny frat boy joke, which insulted a young woman, her father, her mother, and the first female Attorney General of the United States. McCain has proven himself to be more than willing to sell his soul whenever it is most convenient, and he's blown his good-guy cover just a few too many times. He's got zero class and even less credibility.
Whereas the jokes about the Bush twins are completely defensible?

Small shit aside, McCain doesn't represent the ideals of a free nation. Look at his Incumbent Protection Act, otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act. He's an opportunistic whore, which is synonymous with politician, nowadays.

i dont think that one cruel and tasteless joke disqualifies him for the presidency. if he said it over and over again it might mean something but a one time shot that he apologized for just isnt enough.

The joke itself doesn't. It simply shows the true character of the man. He panders to whomever he needs. He is like everybody else in Washington.

Well the rest don't paint themselves as a maverick....

Of course McCain won't sell his soul--he doesn't own it anymore and hasn't for years. Remember this touching moment?

http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/mccain_bush-hug-711518.jpg

I think one of Colbert's best jabs in his act at the Washington Press Corps dinner was the one he threw at McCain, when he invited McCain to stay at his house when McCain goes to speak at Bob Jones University.

As I said in an a different thread:

Repeat after me:

John McCain is NOT a moderate, he is a conservative Republican.

John McCain is NOT a maverick, he has toed the conservative and neo-conservative line despite Bush insulting him and his family in the 2000 election.

John McCain sold his soul years ago. I would not vote for this man to be dog-catcher.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

...

Uh, I mean, uh....

How dare he?!? :mad:

McCain (not the exact quote): Falwell is an angent of intolerance

Now he denies even saying that. If thats not selling your soul I dont know what is. I guess you can only be honest when its not an election year.

McCain is a panderer of the first order - for him, pandering excessively is just "politics as usual."

A faux-moderate, a hardcore opportunist, and unfriendly to boot.

Of course McCain won't sell his soul--he doesn't own it anymore and hasn't for years. Remember this touching moment?

http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/mccain_bush-hug-711518.jpg

I think one of Colbert's best jabs in his act at the Washington Press Corps dinner was the one he threw at McCain, when he invited McCain to stay at his house when McCain goes to speak at Bob Jones University.
All I can say is that McCain takes the cake:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/McCain29aug2005.jpg

McCain is what we call a RINO (Republican In Name Only). To call him a conservative Republican, or for him to call himself as such is laughable. If anything, he is a moderate Republican. Of all Republicans only Olivia Snowe of Maine votes with the liberals more often, though he shares second place for this dubious honor with Lincoln Chafee of R.I. To his credit, however, he has been a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform, which is a very good thing to support indeed. He ran as a Republican for president in 2000 most likely because to run as an independent would have been very difficult, with our two party system in this country the way it is. Indiana for instance, requires 5,000 signatures , including 500 from each and every congressional district to get on the ballot as a third party candidate. Imagine the logistics of accomplishing this feat for all 50 states. So I guess we will see him as a Republican for awhile longer (unfortunately). All the same, he may well prove to be our most viable candidate in the next presidential election.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/ballot/
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
http://www.issues2000.org

McCain is what we call a RINO (Republican In Name Only). To call him a conservative Republican, or for him to call himself as such is laughable. If anything, he is a moderate Republican. Of all Republicans only Olivia Snowe of Maine votes with the liberals more often, though he shares second place for this dubious honor with Lincoln Chafee of R.I. To his credit, however, he has been a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform. He ran as a Republican most likely because to run as an independent would have been very difficult, with our two party system in this country the way it is. Indiana for instance, requires 5,000 signatures , including 500 from each and every congressional district to get on the ballot as a third party candidate. Imagine the logistics of accomplishing this feat for all 50 states. So I guess we will see him as a Republican for awhile longer (unfortunately). All the same, he may well prove to be our most viable candidate in the next presidential election.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/ballot/
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
http://www.issues2000.org
If McCain is a RINO--and make no mistake about it, he's supported every tax cut, every war, every socially repugnant gay-bashing/anti-abortion bill that's come through--then who the hell is a real Republican? McCain is a conservative, through and through. He's no Santorum--and if ever there were an example of damning with faint praise, there is it--but he's far from being a Lincoln Chaffee.

If McCain is a RINO--and make no mistake about it, he's supported every tax cut, every war, every socially repugnant gay-bashing/anti-abortion bill that's come through--then who the hell is a real Republican? McCain is a conservative, through and through. He's no Santorum--and if ever there were an example of damning with faint praise, there is it--but he's far from being a Lincoln Chaffee.

Look him up on Vote Smart, and you will see.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=001939M

Look him up on Vote Smart, and you will see.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004110M
Nothing personal, but you're a fool if you trust those cherry-picked scorecards. You have to look at the entire record, not just a few votes that are meant to make a group's favored candidates look good.

But even if we go by your scorecard, McCain scores a 10 out of 100, while Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a conservative Democrat from a red state scores a 95. Fuck, man, Sam Brownback scored a 10 also, and no one is calling him a RINO.

Sen. John McCain ... takes palpable pleasure in delivering zingers to errant Russians...
What did he say about us, I wonder...

Nothing personal, but you're a fool if you trust those cherry-picked scorecards. You have to look at the entire record, not just a few votes that are meant to make a group's favored candidates look good.

But even if we go by your scorecard, McCain scores a 10 out of 100, while Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a conservative Democrat from a red state scores a 95. Fuck, man, Sam Brownback scored a 10 also, and no one is calling him a RINO.

That particular link was for 2004. My bad. In 2001, one year after his failed attempt at the presidency, it tells a different story. But what it does show is that he inconsistent in his voting record. Whichever way the wind blows. 40% to 10% remains a pretty wide swing for an avowed conservative Republican.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=001939M

That particular link was for 2004. My bad. In 2001, one year after his failed attempt at the presidency, it tells a different story. But what it does show is that he inconsistent in his voting record. Whichever way the wind blows. 40% to 10% remains a pretty wide swing.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=001939M

It can't possibly show inconsistency in the voting record unless the issues being voted on were exactly the same in both years. All this shows is that, in a given year, McCain voted in a way that they liked on more issues. That doesn't mean McCain is inconsistent - it means that the issues up for vote were different.

Do you honestly think it is impossible for someone to agree with a group on some issues and disagree on others?

That particular link was for 2004. My bad. In 2001, one year after his failed attempt at the presidency, it tells a different story. But what it does show is that he inconsistent in his voting record. Whichever way the wind blows. 40% to 10% remains a pretty wide swing for an avowed conservative Republican.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=001939M
What it really means is that he took it on the chin for that particular scorecard. Again, cherry-picked scorecards are bullshit. It was a cherry picked scorecard that had Kerry more liberal than Barbara Boxer or Tom Harkin or Ted Kennedy in 2004, for crying out loud. That same scorecard had John Edwards the 4th most liberal senator, when he was, if anything, a conservative southern Democrat.

McCain has supported Bush on his tax cuts, on his wars, on his Supreme Court nominees, on practically everything he's put through. The big conflict was over torture legislation, and while McCain deserves credit for pushing that through, he deserves criticism for not bitching about Bush's signing statement that claims the authority to ignore the statute if he wishes.

There is no reasonable way to argue that McCain is anything other than what he has claimed to be in the past--a conservative Republican.

Let me add something Myotisinia--according to that second scorecard you linked to, you know who else was at 40%? Ron Paul of Texas--the most Libertarian member of the House. And Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio was at 50%. Those scorecards aren't worth the code they take to put them on the web.

He'll get my vote if he runs.

I'd vastly prefer an honest asshole to a spineless, dishonest shill like John McCain. He certainly had the wool pulled over my eyes five years ago, but there's no way I would ever remotely consider supporting the man.

His joke about Chelsea Clinton at the Republican Senate fund-raiser was the final straw...it was a pathetic, unfunny frat boy joke, which insulted a young woman, her father, her mother, and the first female Attorney General of the United States. McCain has proven himself to be more than willing to sell his soul whenever it is most convenient, and he's blown his good-guy cover just a few too many times. He's got zero class and even less credibility.
You post that like it automatically makes her a better person or something.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I vote for John McCain. I've been actively searching for some kind of third party to vote for if my nightmare comes true and I have to choose between Hillary and him. So far I haven't found anything except for the (paleo)-Libetarian party and a whole bunch of communists and moralist extremists that don't fit my political ideology of neo-libertarianism. If I can't find a good presidential candidate for 2008, I will be a very sad little man.

You post that like it automatically makes her a better person or something.

<sigh>

You know, I hated it when they did it to Amy Carter, I hated it when they did it to Chelsea Clinton, and I despise those who go after the Bush twins. Leave the kids out of the firing line please? It's bloody stupid, tasteless and childish.

I found it remarkably telling that those bastions of family morality, Jeb Bush and his wife refused to go to court to support their daughter when she went on trial for illegal drugs in Florida. What were they afraid of? Sliding poll numbers because they would DARE support their child in a court case?

When you are a parent, you support your kids in a moment like that, even if you KNOW they were wrong you show up and be parents.

No child deserves to be given the type of crap Presidential kids are given. They are not part of the game voluntarily. So shut the fuck up and move on.

Bush fucked McCain over in 2000 and to be honest, if he had any real credibility, he should have turned his back on him then, as opposed to helping the cretin to get re-elected.

This is undoubtedly the key point to me. If he was the man of principle proclaimed, he would have torn the Republicans apart for choosing Bush as leader after what went down in the race. Instead he gets into line like the good party drone and waits his turn.

Nah.

We need an ACP President!! (American Centrist Party)