This was written as a response to something Phillip said back on this post. I got a little carried away, going from one digression to another, so I’m making this into a separate post. Here’s what Phillip wrote:
I couldn’t agree more about McCain, so again, how is it that he
seems to have dropped off the face of the earth with regards to the GOP
primary race? Now I don’t think he walks on water quite as much as you
do, I have been disappointed by some of the slight "triangulation" he’s
done on occasion, vis-a-vis the religious right, etc., but on a gut
level I share the feeling Brooks was conveying.I believe there are two main reasons why McCain has faded from the
race: 1) the radicalization of the GOP implemented by the Cheney-Bush
years (yes, the reverse name order is intentional) that we see
manifested, for example, by the GOP Prez hopefuls outdoing each other
for the title of Torturer-in-Chief (acknowledgement to Frank
Rich)…and 2) Age. Sad to say, but I’m afraid that plays into it in a
big way.Relating to your "Bush-hatred" column of last Sunday, had McCain won
in 2000 I seriously doubt we would have the degree of partisan divide
we do today. Wouldn’t you agree with that, Brad? McCain would (then and
now) view himself as the President of all the people, quite differently
from what we ended up with. This is not a matter of partisan politics,
it’s a matter of character: McCain is indeed a "great" man if that
means being a man of substance and integrity, and the man who slimed
him successfully in SC on his way to the White House turned out to be a
very small and befuddled man way out of his depth who knew nothing of
the larger world, only the cosseted world of comfort and privilege into
which he was born.
Phillip, you are absolutely right about how different things would be if McCain had been elected. The entire world would have been vastly better off. As I said in my previous column linked above, this is the man who should have been president for the past seven years.
And Phillip, I honestly don’t understand why people like bud and Doug have such a powerful compulsion to drag down a man like that. I don’t think he walks on water; I think he is a very human man, with his own frailties like the rest of us. The difference is that he has resolved to discipline himself to overcome those frailties, and to do his best to do the right thing, even when it’s not in his self-interest.
And THAT is why he dropped off the radar — although there is reason to believe he’s climbing back up. It has nothing to do with Cheney and Bush; it has a lot to do with Juan and Rosalita. He ran afoul of the people who just HATE the idea that they are "surrounded" by Mexicans. You’d think we were all in the Alamo, the way these people react.
That brings me to another point. It’s interesting to see how people react to a journalist when he actually says something good about somebody. Because I think Bush hatred (like Clinton hatred, only more advanced) is a corrosively harmful force in our society, I’m seen as a Bush defender, when I actually don’t much like the guy, and harbor bitterness over the wasted years when McCain could have been in his place, the nation would be more united, and Iraq would not have been so shamefully mishandled. But when I raise even mild objections to people having viscerally spiteful reactions to him, suddenly I become part of the problem in their eyes. Even, to some extent, in yours, since you didn’t seem entirely sure that I would agree with you that we’d have been better off with McCain. Because of this I find myself hesitant to demur at your characterization of Bush and Cheney as extremists in their party — but they’re not; you have to look at the Pat Buchanans for that. Ironically, sometime the most polarizing figures are not the most ideologically extreme. Take, for instance, Mrs. Clinton. She’s essentially a mainstreamer, a triangulator in a good sense, which is one reason a lot of folks in her party reject her. But she is the most polarizing candidate among the Democrats, the only one (more so even than Edwards, with his demagogic tendencies) likely to take president hatred to another, worse level. That’s not really fair to her, but there it is. And it’s why, even though I might end up agreeing with her on more issues, particularly foreign policy, I think the country would be better off if Obama got the nomination.
Anyway, back to my point: There are few people I will write about with respect, admiration and even awe (thanks to my recognition of their rarity). On the national scene there is John McCain, and Joe Lieberman. In South Carolina, there is Joe Riley, and increasingly, Lindsey Graham.
Once, there was John Glenn, and I am reminded of him by Gordon’s comments, wondering about the character of anyone who would seek the job. Tom Wolfe wrote of Glenn’s self-esteem mixed with his monklike self-denial. Glenn, to him, was the Presbyterian Pilot, ambitious without the baser manifestations of that quality. I think that maybe Glenn and McCain have more in common beyond the fact that they are both former aviators. Or maybe they have it in common BECAUSE they are former aviators — men of exceptional ability who climbed "right to the top of the pyramid," although in different ways. In any case, I see them both as having the Right Stuff, and McCain possibly more than Glenn.
Related Posts
Let’s have some facts rather than all this “black is white; up is down” nonsense.
John McCain was criticized for his roll in the Keating 5 incident. This was, in fact, a stunning abuse of campaign finance shenanigans, an issue that he fiercely championed a few years later. If McCain was so concerned about campaign finance improprieties why did he engage in such questionable behavior? Here’s a short synopsis of his Keating 5 involvement:
“Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,000 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating’s airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating’s luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain’s wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a “sweetheart deal.”
-www.realchange.org
Then there is adultery. Mind you, this is not critically important to me, but to many Republicans the issue of marrital impropriaty is of extreme importance. Given the savage assualt on Bill Clinton, (not Hillary the victim after all), it seems only fair to fully disclose this character flaw of Senator McCain.
“McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, “aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.” McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure.
-NYT
So McCain has engaged in campaign ethics violations and he’s an adulterer. (And there’s plenty more). So what black fact is really white? McCain is not the ethical stalwart that Brad and many others in the media would have us believe.
Brad wants us all to ignore any evidence that we might interpret as being negative related to Senator McCain because he led a heroic military life four decades ago.
I’ve stated it several times – I voted for McCain in 2000 because I believed that he was a different type of politician. I fully admit to being swayed by the Straight Talk hype. Unfortunately, time has passed and Senator McCain has done nothing to live up to the standards I had expected from him. (not that that matters to him). In fact, he’s gone the other direction. He’s a Republican politician running for the nomination of the Republican party as his final hurrah politically. He’s going to say and do what he thinks he needs to do to achieve that goal. That means attacking Democrats with boilerplate rhetoric, nuancing his positions on abortion, taxes, etc. to get the primary voters support, and
laughing when someone calls Hillary Clinton a bitch.
And Brad still keeps spouting the lie about people who are against illegal immigrants having some sort of racist motivation. It’s straight out of the Lindsey Graham talking points memo. I am not against illegal immigrants because of their race – I am against illegal immigrants because they break the law. I am against illegal immigrants because they drain public resources from American citizens and do not pay their fair share. I don’t care where they come from, only about how they got here. Your views on immigration are in the extreme minority… that doesn’t mean you have to call people who hold the opposite view names. Make your case on facts… provide factual evidence that illegal immigration is good for America.
It is interesting to compare McCain with John Glenn at this point in the campaign highway. Both Glenn and McCain were members of the “Keating Five” bud cites. Now McCain is borrowing another $3 million to keep his campaign running. Glenn finished his 1984 campaign just over $3 million in debt, and stuck hundreds of small businesses, plus four constituent Ohio banks, without payment for decades. I can’t find any report that Glenn’s debt was ever fully retired.
bud … how can you regurgitate these allegations against McCain, and forget the Clintons, much less pretend outrage on Hillary’s behalf?
What about Whitewater? Forget Bill’s dealings. How did subpoenaed files disappear from the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary worked, then show up years later in the White House, with her fingerprints on the documents?
How did she manage to turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 return?
Why did the Department of Interior have to shame her and Bill into returning furnishings and other loot taken from the White House when they moved out?
How does she justify accepting $70,000 in senate campaign financing from the wife of fugitive Marc Rich, who Bill pardoned?
How did her brother, Hugh Rodham, collect $400,000 for lobbying pardons from Bill?
What do these things, among many others, say about the Clinton’s character or ethics?
They’re a team, remember?
Everyone wants someone who is ‘perfect’ in his/her eyes. It’s unlikely anyone will see perfection in that sense, and if a person is perfect to someone, chances are that everyone else will find many flaws in that person. I don’t think Senator McCain is perfect. Of course he has flaws. Personally who’s in his bed is his business. As for the Keating Five scandal, maybe something should have come out that didn’t, but as far as I can see, he trusted people a little too much. A set-up like that can be good training in the trust department. Yes, he has supported his party. That’s called loyalty by some. I don’t like his party much of late, but if he believes in the basic platforms of his party, politically speaking its best that he support it. All politics involves compromise. I don’t get what I want; you don’t get what you want. We both get enough so we don’t wage war. I like McCain, and can respect him even when I disagree with him majorly over some things. I’m trying to figure out whom I least want on each side. I’ll probably vote democratic because one of the major issues is climate, and the republicans have yet to show any great stomach for, or understanding of, that struggle. In addition, they (republicans are all too ready to continue a war that we lack army to continue; however, they are showing no signs of being willing to increase taxes to pay for it, or increase expenditures to care for those who come back maimed from the war. That boat won’t float, and I don’t want to sink with it.
It’s quite true that no one who rises to the top (or near the top) in national politics has a squeaky-clean personality. This is one disgruntled Baby Boomer who wonders why the first Presidents from our generation were two men of deeply flawed character. But I probably expect too much.