Tuesday, March 13, 2007
|
|
I Promised...
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
10:38 AM
|
|
…that someday I would say something nice about John McCain. The time has come. This link goes to an interview where the Senator movingly discusses his captivity. While on most days we focus here on the other two thirds of Hugh’s formulation regarding McCain, this video reminds us of the first part – in spite of everything else, John McCain is a great American.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
This is a good comment from Dean on St. John. But, as the Professor, Law Clerk would say,' McCain is a great American, a hero, but a lousy Republican Senator.' Perhaps he will end up as SecDef with the next Pub Presidency. |
|
I had the honor of meeting Admiral James Stockdale years ago when I was an undergrad at the University of San Diego.
He was held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison for seven years. Locked in leg irons in a bath stall, he was tortured and beaten. When told by his captors that he was to be paraded in public, Stockdale slit his scalp with a razor to purposely disfigure himself so that his captors could not use him as propaganda. When they covered his head with a hat, Stockdale beat himself with a stool until his face was swollen beyond recognition. He told them in no uncertain terms that they would never use him. When Stockdale heard that other prisoners were dying under the torture, he slit his wrists and told them that he preferred death to submission.
Stockdale was released as a prisoner of war in 1973. His shoulders had been wrenched from their sockets, his leg shattered by angry villagers and a torturer, and his back broken. But he had refused to capitulate.
Stockdale retired to Coronado, California, as he slowly succumbed to Alzheimer's disease.
He never compromised who he was or what he was about. He famously said: "Do the right thing even if it means dying like a dog when no one's there to see you do it. The test of character is not hanging in when you expect light at the end of the tunnel, but performance of duty, and persistence of example when you know no light is coming. In order to do something you must be something."
Maybe he and McCain started in the same place but they didn't end up in the same place -- that's the difference for me anyway. McCain the "politician" isn't for me.
|
|
The usual skinny on McCain ... good man, bad senator, terrible president.
Thanks for your service, John. We lurve yah.
Do us one last favor and don't ask for our vote.
|
|
»in spite of everything else«
Shouldn't that be, "despite"? As in, "nothing else matters"?
That McCain is a great American isn't spiteful, is it? |
|
»The usual skinny on McCain ... good man, bad senator, terrible president.
Thanks for your service, John. We lurve yah.
Do us one last favor and don't ask for our vote.«
Soooo, if McCain is the nominee, you'd rather vote for the Dem, or not vote and enable the Dem to get in, is THAT it?
As it stands now, Thompson's my man.
However, if McCain is the nominee, I sure ain't gonna vote Dem, nor vote for a third candidate and enable the Dem.
In the final analysis, I'm voting for the Republican. A wavering Republican is better than any Dem.
Did disgruntled Republicans learn anything last year? Did they WANT Dems in congressional majority? Did they get what they want?
|
|
|
don't sponsor laws that make a mockery of the 1st Amendment. |
|
If McCain gets the nomination, I'll vote for him, and I'll support him.
McCain has been for increased troop levels, and a larger force structure for over 3 years.
If the surge works, and early indications are favourable, McCain will have proven visionary and toughminded.
McCain will be able to run advertisements tracking his past statements on the war, with the policy that ultimately led to success.
Those ads will be powerful.
|
|
|
I'll take McCain and all his flaws over Clinton or Obama, any day of the week. |
|
...Dems Sharpening HariKari Blades
Dan: »If McCain gets the nomination, I'll vote for him, and I'll support him.«
GenXDad: »Swampthing's right
I'll take McCain and all his flaws over Clinton or Obama, any day of the week. «
Yes. Those Republicans who were mad at their GOP representatives last election either voted against them, or didn't vote at all, and that enabled the Dems to win. That's not what consequences angry Republican voters had in mind, I'll bet. Still, that's what they got and what they imposed on us. I just hope they learned their lesson.
On Election Day Eve, a year and a half from now, if Thompson and whoever -- especially Gingrich --share the tix, Dems will have discovered, in themselves, a despondent, suicidal tendency. |
|
I just wish the republicans who are having wet dreams about Rudy Giuliani would wake up soon.
Rudy CANNOT win running as a pro-choice republican. As it is, the huge evangelical base has a hard enough time trusting McCain and Romney. Does anyone really think they will vote for Rudy ?
Its time for Fred Thompson to step in the race and end all this nonsense. |
|
...Thinks the Dem Would be Better than a Repub He doesn't Like
»Rudy CANNOT win running as a pro-choice republican. As it is, the huge evangelical base has a hard enough time trusting McCain and Romney. Does anyone really think they will vote for Rudy ?«
Sooo, if Ruds is the nominee, you will vote for, what, the Dem!!??? You'll vote for some third guy and enable the Dem??!! You think the Dem is better than Ruds??!!
|
|
McCain would probably have been a better commander in chief on the war than George W. Bush and more effective.
On domestic policy, McCain sometimes does not get it. The tax cuts actually were a good idea and did increase revenue.
McCain Feingold was a mistake. But then again, George Bush signed that mistake into law claiming it was flawed (at least McCain thought it was right). |
|
There is something though that would make me seriously ponder not voting for Romney.
And that's if he places Jeb Bush on the ticket.
Any candidate who reaches out to a member of the Bush family is tainted.
Absolutely tainted.
The GOP desperately needs to get beyond the Bush family, the Bush ethos, the Bush blue blood scruples. In short, we need to put the Bush family behind us once and for all.
I would be appalled at any Republican who tried to attach a member of that Rockefeller Republican clan to the ticket.
A Bush, or "Bushie" support, for me, is kiss of death.
I'm tired of the affectations of a blue blood family controlling the public relations efforts of the Grand Old Party.
I'm tired of all things Bush.
As is most of the country. |
|
So, Dan -- and I think you're Republican -- you would consider voting for the Dem -- or a third dude and enable the Dem to get in -- cuz you don't like the GOP nominee?
You may vote for the Dem -- or another guy and enable the Dem -- just cuz the Republican gets Bush support??
Soooo, a Dem is better than a Republican?? |
|
SwampT.
We voted for Bush against Kerry, assuming we were getting the man that Zell Miller extolled during his sensational Convention speech.
But that's not the man we got.
I'm convinced that there is some FAMILIAL flaw in the Bush family that makes them incapable of enacting a genuine Conservative agenda. Moreover, there's something that makes them incapable of acting consistent with the tenets of the GOP platform.
Too often they've acted like their FOREMOST political opponents are members of the GOP base.
Recall Mark Gerson, former Chief speechwriter for GW. Remember that speech he gave as soon as he left employ at the White House. He called the base the equivalent of "religious fundamentalists." And rest assured, that was meant in a complementary fashion.
I'm also convinced too that the President KNEW EXACTLY what he was getting with Harriet Meirs. I don't think he thought for half a second that she was Conservative. He knew that she was moderate, just like his former White House Counsel, just like his present Attorney General.
As the father offset the nomination of Thomas with Souter, so the son INTENDED, ALL ALONG, INTENDED to offset Roberts with Meirs.
And Card, who played a prime role in the selection of Souter, who played a major role in falsifying what was known about Souter, PLAYED THE SAME ROLE during the entire Meirs drama.
Card is pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, he's another Rockefeller Republican.
Those are the types of men and women that the men of the Bush family prefer to surround themselves with.
Lastly, the idea of allowing another Bush to be the clear nominee in the future, {as would happen if Romney won with Jeb as his Vice P.}, turns my stomach.
This party desperately, yes, DESPERATELY needs to get as much space between it and Kennebunkport, and all things blue-blood.
The Bush men have been a disaster for this party.
It's almost as if they were out on a private, unspoken bender against all things Reaganite.
|
|
»We voted for Bush against Kerry, assuming we were getting the man that Zell Miller extolled during his sensational Convention speech.
But that's not the man we got.«
So, you regret, now, that you didn't vote for Kerry cuz, at least, you know what you're getting with him.
»I'm convinced that there is some FAMILIAL flaw in the Bush family that makes them incapable of enacting a genuine Conservative agenda.«
However, there is more of a flaw in the Kerry family that would have made him incapable of enacting a genuine Conservative agenda.
There is a flaw in all Libs that makes them incapable of enacting a genuine conservative agenda. That's why, next year, I'm votin' Republican. I won't care, at THAT time, who the GOP nominee is.
»Too often they've acted like their FOREMOST political opponents are members of the GOP base.«
The Dem will be worse, as we're finding out with Dems having been elected to majority in Congress.
»I'm also convinced too that the President KNEW EXACTLY what he was getting with Harriet Meirs. I don't think he thought for half a second that she was Conservative. He knew that she was moderate, just like his former White House Counsel, just like his present Attorney General.«
Well, I, too, had to do a double take when I saw that she was the nominee.
»Card is pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, he's another Rockefeller Republican.«
Well, first off:
All men may marry women.
All women may marry men.
No man may marry another man.
No woman may marry another woman.
I dunno how anybody can say that homosexuals may not marry. They may.
So, I don't get this "pro-homosexual 'marriage'" stuff of his and anybody else's. They may and CAN marry.
»Those are the types of men and women that the men of the Bush family prefer to surround themselves with.«
I see your point.
»Lastly, the idea of allowing another Bush to be the clear nominee in the future, {as would happen if Romney won with Jeb as his Vice P.}, turns my stomach.
This party desperately, yes, DESPERATELY needs to get as much space between it and Kennebunkport, and all things blue-blood.«
This is why, so far, I am tickled by the prospect of Thompson gettin' in on this. We got a year and a half, and things can go sour; but, so far, preliminarily, I got the hots for his candidacy, based on what he said Sunday.
»The Bush men have been a disaster for this party.«
I understand your frustration. |
|
Dean,
Rather than dumping on McCain all the time, this kind of useful linkage is just what the blog needs. You don't have to praise him, but an occasional link to a video or interesting story wouldn't hurt. I know it was Hugh's formulation, but there's no reason to neglect McCain altogether, either.
Blogging at: http://www.blogs4mccain.com |
|
|
McCain is too much of a socialistic crybaby with the morals of a rino. I have voted republican for 40 years, three times for the candidate(Nixon,Reagan & G.W.)If McCain is the candidate I will have to write in a name. |
|
|
|