McCain tries to sell his soul, but the Devil is saying no

Space Goat said:

From CNN's Bill Schneider: "Is McCain trying to have it both ways?"

​

I respected the strength and integrity John McCain showed in the 2000 presidential race by bucking the partisans and extremists of the GOP establishment. But since last year, when McCain cut a deal with the Bush administration to allow abuse of detainees to continue, McCain has morphed into a pathetic weenie through his kowtowing to the hard right. And, even more pitifully, the right is largely rebuffing McCain's efforts. So McCain has sold out his honesty that appealed to moderates and independents--the people who gave him political strength--and he has gotten very little in return from archconservatives.

We (sadly) expect politicians to behave this way. But McCain's betrayal of principle is more egregious than the normal flip-flop because millions of Americans believed in him. He was their hero. His new sycophancy to the right crushes many of the hopes and dreams people had for introducing the spirit of the "Straight Talk Express" into government.

If McCain becomes the Republican presidential nominee for 2008, this might be the second presidential election in a row wherein I don't bother to vote.

Click to expand...

1069 said:

A succinct and- I believe- accurate analysis.
Why does everyone- everyone- continue pandering to the evangelical extremists?
They are not that big a demographic, folks.
And a lot of them have- like spoiled children turning up their noses at every spoonful of food offered to them- ceased to vote at all, since no candidate is, any longer, to their fickle and finicky liking.
The GOP should take a page from the democrats' book: they pandered to the moderates and centrists in November, and won the kingdom.

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

Stick a fork in him....he's done. McCain's self implosion over the last several months has doomed him as a serious candidate. Its going to be a two-person race in the Republican primaries....Giuliani v. Romney.

Click to expand...

galenrox said:

It saddens me that this perception is catching on, cause it's complete crap. Yes, he panders, who the hell doesn't? In fact, I wouldn't trust a republican who isn't willing to pander a little bit, because all that means is you're not serious about wanting to become president.

I can guarantee you that there will absolutely not be a single viable candidate in the presidential election who has not pandered to interest groups, which could be referred to "selling his/her soul". What separates John McCain is that he has integrity, and thus it was a lot harder for him to accept that in order for him to do the good that he can, he's gotta bite the bullet and tow the line a little bit. He still talks straight, he's upfront about his principles, and he's shown that when he thinks something is important he doesn't cave to popular opinion, which is fortitude necessary in a commander in chief.

There is not a single candidate anywhere close to John McCain as far as whether or not they should be president. Nowhere close.

Click to expand...

galenrox said:

That's your way of determining integrity? By hiring people to your campaign who have actually won?
See, that's the problem, when it comes to Republicans, if they show any effort to actually try to win, they automatically don't have any integrity, and that's crap. He wants to be President, and so he's doing what he has to to have a shot at winning, so he's not making the same mistakes that led to him losing before.

Click to expand...

GySgt said:

Senator McCain is one of few Senators that have consistently battled against the defense industry.

A very recent attempt to push through a leasing deal with Boeing for a new generation of refeuling aircraft was based on outright fraud (In Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Air Force misbehavior reached a new low - sorry Stace). A senior civilian official, Darlene Druyun (time spent in prison), sweetened the already inflated contract by several billion dollars for the promise of a $250,000-a-year retirement job, along with jobs for her relitives. Secretary pof the Air Force James Roche, who later found it prudent to resign, broke with approved procurement practices and internal regulations to favor Boeing over competitors, crushing internal dissent and directing efforts to mislead Congress. One Boeing executive went to prison for his role.

The tanker aircraft in question were not needed as urgently as the Air Force secretariat insisted. The real purpose of the deal was to allow Boeing to keep an unprofitable assembly line open-while scoring enourmous uneraned profits. Internal attempts by midlevel Pentagon officials to shed light on the potential for fraud or to argue for a standard cost-benefit analysis were crushed by Secretary Roche and his deputies. Only dogged resistance to the deal from a handful of Senators led by Senator John McCain prevented Druyun, Roche, and Boeing from ramming the deal through Congress, since three out of the four congressional committees involved had given it rubber-stamped approval before McCain dug in his heels.

This is just one example on how our Air Force and Naval hieracrchy secures their next careers within the defense industry and how our Congress is duped by self-righteous servents with words like "nothing is too good for our troops." But McCain, along with Phil Gramm, John Warner, and Lieberman, and a few incorrubtable others defended our troops, understands that what they give us isn't good enough and he also takes the American tax payer seriously. The disgraceful tanker deal was eventually grounded.

There are other examples on how McCain has stood his ground against this beast in which so many other Congressmen are either unwitting supporters of or outright cheerleaders of.

Click to expand...

galenrox said:

No, that is being a politician. To quote John F Kennedy in "Profiles of Courage" "It is thinking of that next campaign--the desire to be re-elected--that provides the second pressure on the conscientious Senator. It should not automatically be assumed that this is a wholly selfish motive--although it is not unnatural that those who have chosed politics as their profession should seek to continue their careers--for Senators who go down to defeat in a vain defense of a single principle will not be on hand to fight for that or any other principle in the future."

When it's mattered he's always held strong, and your complaining that he's unwilling to render himself irrelevant, and that this unwillingness is proof of a lack of integrity. That's just plain ridiculous!

Click to expand...

WI Crippler said:

Maybe at sometime they will think to develop some troop transport aircraft, and ground vehicles that are more viable. **** some of our helicopters
(which are the one aircraft our current enemies have a chance of shooting down) are older than all but the saltiest generals that don't ride on them anyway. And if anbody has ever ridden on a c-130 transport aircraft, you know what turbulence really is.

Click to expand...

galenrox said:

When it's mattered he's always held strong...

Click to expand...

GySgt said:

Vehicles and transports.

You know that the Army has the tendency to stagnate themselves, while the Marine Corps is always looking for that next step in doctrine and equipment (though we can't afford the equipment usually). And that any idea the Marine Corps plays on is scoffed at by the Army until it is proven good and then they try to take the idea as their own. Our branches would work better together if the Army was more receptive to our advances in doctrine and the Marine Corps weren't so quick to circle the wagons.

Anyway, a couple years ago, the Marine Corps and the Army did something which was not common. They were tasked to work together and come up with a new vehicle to replace the HMMWV. They collaborated and came up with what they thought was the next step - a vehicle with enforced axle strength to support armor which is built into the chasis. It was slightly bigger than the HMMWV. When this was produced as an Army/Marine Corps aggreed upon model to the Chief's of Staff and the military advancement committee, they were told to go back to the drawing board. The reason? It was too big to fit comfortably into the 30 year old transports the Air Force has.

In the mean time, our Vietnam vintage helicopters are dropping out of the sky during training exercises while...

- The Air Force tries to get Congress to approve billions of dollars to replace perfectly fine equipment like air refuelers.

- The Air Force's multi billion dollar F/22 program which was supposed to be for the purpose of dog fighting against the Soviet Union has been upgraded and preserved by changing it to the FA/22 and giving it a small payload to support troops on the gound, depite the fact that it carries far less than our existing ground support air craft (which also costs far less).

- The Navy has fooled Congress into believing that our Submarine force is inadequate so they have a multi-billion dollar Nuclear Submarine program in the works.

Everytime I visit a weapons EXPO, I am amazed at what the civilian sector has managed to get past Congress. Usually, it is with the help of our hierachy uniformed members who want more toys. It's always the same thing. It's as if there's a book that is passed out amongst the big corporations that instruct them on how to soothe the questions of Congress. Nobody wants to look like they are against the military, so a simple phrase like "nothing is too good for our troops" is on the lips of every defense industry agent as well as the constant Pentagon bogeyman warning that we are going to face off with the Chinese Army tomorrow is the rallying cry.

Click to expand...

Our greatest President in history could easily be in the next election (if it was to be) and he will have compromised his way there.

Click to expand...

Space Goat said:

He would not have surrendered the principles that make him who he is, though. A good leader cannot be a reed in the wind, but a windmill whose blades churn but whose superstructure stands resolute, no matter what.

Click to expand...

Space Goat said:

He would not have surrendered the principles that make him who he is, though. A good leader cannot be a reed in the wind, but a windmill whose blades churn but whose superstructure stands resolute, no matter what.

Click to expand...

Space Goat said:

I agree with the posters in this thread who say politicians must compromise on some things to remain viable. The problem with McCain, though, is he has compromised away the very things that made me respect him in the first place.

I respected McCain for cutting his own path instead of taking the well-trodden road of the GOP establishment. But wait, now McCain has embraced the establishment.

I respected McCain for condemning the Religious Right for its intolerance. But wait, now McCain has attempted to reconcile with the Religious Right.

I respected McCain for excoriating dirty campaign tactics. But wait, now McCain has hired the people most guilty of that skulduggery.

I respected McCain for defending the Geneva Conventions against the depredations of the Bush administration. But wait, now McCain has let the Bush administration treat detainees as dreadfully as it did before.

After all these compromises, I no longer respect John McCain. I now think he's an opportunistic coward.


He would not have surrendered the principles that make him who he is, though. A good leader cannot be a reed in the wind, but a windmill whose blades churn but whose superstructure stands resolute, no matter what.

Click to expand...

galenrox said:

So you respected him for ideological reasons, that's not respect, that's strategic alliegence. I actually respect him, not for ideological reasons, but for who he is. Those things listed mean nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of determining one's character. There are a million different reasons why people come to those conclusions, there are a million different types of people who would come to those conclusions, ranging the full spectrum from absolutely fantastic presidential material to the most unqualified piece of **** imaginable.
Those things listed don't mean **** in any other way than being indicitive of broader character traits, and thus your face value analysis doesn't strike me as valid. Of course, I've drawn a different conclusion than you, so obviously there are going to be differences in opinion, but if those are the reasons you "respected" him, then it's a lie to claim that you ever truly respected him, you appreciated him as he promoted your ideology.

From what I've seen, these changes are surface, and bare no relevance on who he is, or what kind of president he'll be. I think it comes down to Democrats being upset that he's reminding them that he is in fact a Republican, and he's a Republican for a reason, and thus when he must compromise, those are the things that don't matter as much to him.

Click to expand...

• He is willing to turn his back on many of the things in which he claimed to believe just to become president. How can I trust this man when he promised "Straight Talk" but now speaks out of both sides of his mouth?
• The Religious Right foments hatred of and preaches misery for homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, and anyone else who doesn't embrace their religious philosophy. McCain rightly blasted the Religious Right for its intolerance in 2000. If he's now willing to make nice with them, though, that indicates he either was lying before or is now acquiescing knowingly to the Religious Right's politics of religious zealotry. Neither of those scenarios bespeak uprightness on McCain's part.
• Our executive branch's torture of detainees and violation of the Geneva Conventions trample the principles of decency for which our nation stands and endanger our troops by encouraging our enemies not to treat them humanely. McCain has said as much. But now, because of presidential politics, McCain is willing to let the Bush administration do whatever it wants to detainees? For McCain to allow such deplorable practices to continue when he knows from personal experience they're wrong is sickening.
• McCain is willing to betray the millions of Americans who have supported him for nearly a decade, without whom McCain would be a nobody who couldn't even contemplate a presidential bid now. For McCain to do so reveals a propensity within McCain for ingratitude and self-aggrandizement.

aps said:

:applaud :bravo: :clap:

Couldn't have said it better myself. You articulated exactly how I feel about McCain.

Click to expand...

RightOfCenter said:

Alright aps, point out a politician who has never compromised and feel free to vote for them.

Click to expand...

aps said:

For me, my feelings on integrity are on a case-by-case basis. If you go back to my posts when I first started posting here, I was always saying very positive things about McCain. However, in the last year and a half, I have watched him go from someone whom I admired (and someone who I was willing to vote for should he run for president in 2008) to someone for whom I have almost no respect (and someone who I will NEVER vote for should he be the Republican nominee). I consider myself to be someone who weighs facts as they play out and will change my mind about someone when the facts warrant such (based on my perception). McCain had my respect, and he lost it. Can he get it back? DOUBTFUL.

The same applies to Hillary Clinton. I am very much a democrat, but I cannot stand that woman. If she and McCain are the last ones standing, I will vote for her, but reluctantly. If she and Guiliani are the last ones standing, I would vote for him. But I am really hoping she gets a wake-up call and does NOT get the nomination. She is full of $hit, and her pandering the way she is makes me sick.

Click to expand...