John McCain: Plain Spoken Heroism
Politics, Republicans — By Dustin R. Steeve on September 5, 2008 at 12:16 pmBy John Mark Reynolds
John McCain cannot give a great speech, but he has lived a great life. He has done great things, but he wants to do more. Tonight John McCain did well, but Sarah Palin gave the speech everyone will remember. Her soaring rhetoric met her promising reality and caused a national explosion of interest in the Republican Party.
She beat Obama as the most watched speech this year.
That is fine with the Maverick, because he is not known for his rhetoric, but his reality. Nobody can match his reality.
John McCain was inspirational, especially at the end, because he is an American hero running to serve his nation.
His speech was about what he would do and what he believed. It was straight and clear and McCain was unbowed as he gave it. When interrupted by aging protesters, he waved them off, because John McCain has seen war protesters, perhaps even those very same people, before in worse circumstances.
McCain became eloquent as he talked about his desire to serve.
At the end John McCain stopped giving a speech and began to talk about why he wants to be president. If there is one thing you have to believe is that he will, in his words, fight for America as long as he has breath . . . so help him God.
He is a moderate man and has moderate ambitions.
He is a hero, but he has the humility of a man who became a hero by being crushed by adversity. If there was a day when he was hot headed, it is plain that time has mellowed him. John McCain is not the president for anyone who wants great words, but he is the president for Americans who want someone who knows who to fight, when to fight, and where to fight.
He is a quiet fighter for a changed Washington. He is running to be a servant leader and not savior of America.
John McCain did, as he always has, what he had to do tonight. We can be pretty sure that if elected, he will do the same.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
104 Comments
Generally I refrain from responding to you Boonton, because as comments like this show, you really are a moron, but I couldn’t let this howler slip by. So, cover stories in People and Us Magazines,
His wife is an adult, his children are not. His ‘biographical profile’ is public (happily married two kids etc.) but he keeps his kids out of the limelight. He did allow a interview of them on a Holiday but even that he said he regretted and wouldn’t be doing again. This is hardly exceptional, Clinton’s daughter was more or less kept private during his presidency and so have Bush’s kids.
Nice of you to ignore all the other points. I didn’t think you had anything worthwhile to say about them.
Barack Obama is an evil, deceitful, and unaccomplished man. He supports the murder of babies. He is a communist in his economic views (today masked under the misleading, euphemistic phrase “liberation theology”). He was a community agitator in league with ACORN. If he believes the black liberation theology preached by Jeremiah Wright, the theology that he tithed to support for twenty years, then he isn’t a Christian, and is lying about that, too. He claimed not to have been raised a Muslim; but school records and family friends testify that, during his childhood years, he was indeed raised as a Muslim. So he has lied about that as well. He is in bed with the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine. He funneled millions of tax dollars to corrupt contractors like Tony Rezco (think Harry Lime from The Third Man, except involved in crooked building schemes instead of penicillin theft). He himself is corrupt, having personally profited off a crooked Chicago land deal. He accomplished nothing of lasting substance as a community agitator. He wrote nothing as a law professor. He accomplished nothing of substance as a state senator. He has accomplished nothing of substance as a federal senator. The reason his supporters are all spitting and snarling like rats is because they’re cornered. The mythology and illusion around Obama, the illusion without which he cannot gain power, is collapsing around him in large chunks.
Mike Toreno,
If you edit out the gratuitous ad hominem’s, then you’re left with some good points.
Evaluating character is a highly personal affair, and I respect your right to disagree. But I call it as I see it: McCain has good, strong character, equal to the office of the presidency.
All the best to you, my insult-prone friend.
Where was the love of God in McCain’s Convention.
It was divide and rule and ridicule and slash and burn. Then talk bipartisan on the last day.
WHERE WAS THE TRUTH in Sarah Palins speech. Where was the love of one another that we Christains and especially evangelicals should mirror at all times.
My father’s name has been hijacked for political gain. But remember, the LORD SEES ALL THINGS.
Let us think carefully and remember that after the elections are over, after our lives on this earth are over, We gave a greater being to answer to: God.
For the book of James says that if we know the right thing to do not do it is sin
Matthew, in other words, you got pwned. I demonstrated that your adulation of McCain is unprincipled and that you’re a hypocrite, so you retreat to your typical cowardly position, that of avoiding your opponent’s points by claiming they aren’t presented in the way you desire. You aren’t entitled to decide how your opponents can express themselves. What you could do, and it would be a novelty, certainly, is to express yourself in an honest way.
What would that look like? Stooping to your level by calling you a liar, a coward, and a hypocrite who can’t make an argument? I see no need for another Mike Toreno wannabe in a thread. I’m fairly certain Matthew doesn’t either.
And I know the right thing is to NOT vote for a fellow that supports infanticide. In fact, I would go so far as to say that voting for anybody other than the major contender would be a sin.
I’ve been job hunting for seven months and am voting for Obama. I respect Sen. McCain and honor him for his POW/service, but he’s been a member of the ultimate power club far too long to understand the working middle class; and Palin, although refreshing and interesting, is a gimmick I am not falling for. Sorry, I cannot even imagine a Republican in office again for at least twelve years — they have blown it so badly. This is the first generation of Americans who are worse off than their parents. I think the Republican motto should be, “I got mine, what’s wrong with you!?” I agree there is NO high road to take with respect to abortion, but there are more issues than abortion. No matter how bad one might think it will be when Obama and Biden are in office, it cannot possible be worse than the rampant incompetence, greed, arrogance, bad judgment and stupidity of the last eight years. Even most conservatives were disgusted or embarrassed. Palin doesn’t change anything — she will not be exempt from the same process that all weathered politicians have to survive, as ugly as that truly is. The Palin distraction is a clever (and desparate) ploy, but it does not fool me one bit. Republican brothers and sisters, you have earned a Democratic White House and administration. I’d vote for the Maytag repairman over a Republican right now.
“If Cindy McCain happened to be John McCain’s first and only wife, would that change anyone’s vote here (“anyone” meaning “Rob Ryan”, for instance)?”
Not mine. So I guess it doesn’t matter. Never mind.
“If this is the worst thing he has done in 30 years, then his character is pretty d**m impressive, and would speak strongly in favor of his candidacy.”
It’s a darn sight worse than anything I have done in the last thirty years, yet no one is touting me for president. To be honest, though, the torture section of my resume is a bit thin.
“Because he didn’t just lose his first wife,…”
I think she lives in Virginia Beach, but it’s probably too late now, hmm?
“… he also lost the ability to raise his arms above his head”
Dang! I guess he won’t be making any deodorant commercials after he loses the election. Maybe Bob Dole can set him up with the folks who market Viagra.
Note to ucf: NOW I am making light of John McCain. See the difference?
Look guys: I admire McCain’s courage and his service to our country (if only more folks on your side had said the same about Kerry instead of smearing his service record!). I used to even admire the man himself. But I don’t want him to be president. I don’t trust him, and Palin is a nightmare in heels. If he picks Supreme Court justices like he picks a VP running mate, he’ll finish the vandalism of the court begun by Bush II. No thanks.
Michael Toreno,
What you could do, and it would be a novelty, certainly, is to express yourself in an honest way.
Now that you’ve had a little time to cool off, I suggest you read again what I wrote. Here’s a hint, in case I was being a little too subtle: I was agreeing with you, there are ethical/character issues you can raise about McCain, and you succeeded in mentioning a few of them.
Now if I’m supposed to be a hypocrite because I can acknowledge when you’re telling the truth even when I’m disagreeing with your conclusion, then I’ll just repeat that you’re entitled to your opinion and leave it at that.
Hasta luego, mi insult-prone amigo.
Rob Ryan,
[ How McCain ended his first marriage is ] a darn sight worse than anything I have done in the last thirty years, yet no one is touting me for president. To be honest, though, the torture section of my resume is a bit thin.
How do you know it’s worse? Do you know the two parties personally; are you basing it on hearsay; are you just making an assumption?
I don’t trust [Senator McCain] …
And you trust Senator Obama?
… and Palin is a nightmare in heels.
Hmmm… a nightmare, you say?
Are you a corrupt politician? No, you’re a teacher. Are you concerned Governor Palin might support vouchers for public school students? What exactly is worrying you about her?
Perhaps it is because she is pro-life. Is that the reason?
Mike M. in Colorado,
Perhaps you are right to be cynical about Republican politicians, even Governor Palin.
But why in the world would you be cynical about them and not about the Democratic ones?
Smm,
Mike Toreno believes it is okay to hurt people who disagree with him. Maybe he doesn’t believe that consciously, but the way he acts in comment threads clearly demonstrates how he feels.
Other people lash out occasionally in anger and frustration, but for Mike, hurtful comments are a policy. And I know he knows how to write thoughtfully and respectfully, because I’ve seen him do it every now and again.
One day he might realize that a person who won’t criticize and control himself does not come across as very credible when he criticizes others.
This is the first generation of Americans who are worse off than their parents.
I don’t really know that this is true, but let’s say it is for the moment and explore why it might be. Could it possibly be that it is because the economic plan of our parents and grandparents was unsustainable. I found this in an article about Obama’s history as a community organizer:
“The long-term goal was to retrain workers in order to restore manufacturing jobs in the area; Kellman (the person who hired Obama) took Obama by the rusted-out, closed-down Wisconsin Steel plant for a firsthand look. But the whole thing was a bit of a pipe dream, as the leaders soon discovered. “The idea was to interview these people and look at education, transferable skills, so that we could refer them to other industries,” Loretta Augustine-Herron told me as we drove by the site of the old factory, now completely torn down. “Well, they had no transferable skills. I remember interviewing one man who ran a steel-straightening machine. It straightened steel bars or something. I said, well, what did you do? And he told me he pushed a button, and the rods came in, and he pushed a button and it straightened them, and he pushed a button and it sent them somewhere else. That’s all he did. And he made big bucks doing it.””
We see the same things happening in the US auto industry (though strangely, not in Japanese auto plants based in the US). Maybe the problem is that US industry can no longer afford to pay “big bucks” for what is essentially, unskilled labor and maybe we need to accept that changing the political party in charge is not going to change that dynamic. That is not to say that the US can’t produce quality, high-paying jobs, only that we can’t produce low-skill, high-paying jobs anymore.
Matthew, like I said, you got pwned, and are too much of a coward, liar, and hypocrite to admit it. Yes, you agreed with my position on McCain’s history of immoral acts, but then failed to admit the inescapable conclusion that follows from that admission – namely, that McCain is an immoral man. The reason for this is that you want to support McCain and you want to claim that he exhibits an exemplary character. Therefore, you engage in convolutions and make excuses in order to avoid admitting that his behavior exhibits a degraded character.
No, evaluating character is not a highly personal affair. Evaluating character involves examining a person’s actions and comparing them against generally accepted moral standards. McCain has led a generally dishonorable life for decades, that makes him dishonorable. By ignoring his dishonorable conduct in evaluating his character, you demonstrate that you are a hypocrite who doesn’t care anything about character.
There’s two possible answers to the unskilled labor problem:
Direct income assistance to those too old to really be taught new skills with incentives to take lower paying unskilled jobs as they finish off their careers.
Educational assistance to those young enough to learn new skills.
The Obama episode ucfengr posted is interesting because it depicted one style of fighting poverty; fighting for a geographical area. Obama seemed to experience how that fight can be a losing one if the dynamics that created a particular economic climate disappear as in the case of some of the rust belt’s industrial cities. The other style is to target aid to the person….for example education grants let the person try to get more skills and move to whereever they are economically viable. A town or city may still collapse but individuals move on and will hopefully be ok in the long run.
Naturally city councils and community organizations concentrate on the geographical fight. It’s good to keep in mind, though, how limited that may be.
“How do you know it’s worse?”
For one thing, he cheated on his wife. Repeatedly. In 17 years of marriage, I haven’t come close to cheating, though I’m sure I’ve had as many opportunities as McCain. He pressed for a divorce. He took responsibility for the failure of his marriage. His wife does not dispute this admission. I am willing to take him at his word on this, since politicians generally do not take responsibilities for screw-ups unless they have to. I’ve had a couple of speeding tickets and sometimes I have a drink or two.
“And you trust Senator Obama?”
Yes. And I think his SCOTUS appointments will maintain the current balance, as I think the next couple of openings will be to replace left-leaners. Maybe he can even restore the pre-O’Connor retirement balance, especially if certain justices fall victim to high-fat diets or something.
“What exactly is worrying you about her?”
Too much to list here. Maybe you can open a Palin thread at your place, if you are still blogging.
John McCain dumped his first wife for a billionaire heiress trophy wife, he almost went to jail for taking bribes in Abscam, has consistently voted against measures designed to help the most vulnerable in society, supported the initiation of an illegal and immoral war, supports the indefinite continuation of the same war, has engaged in the most reprehensible and risable smearing in political history (worse than the worst Karl Rove envisioned) pandered to rascists in SC, and has purpotrated the most cynical ploy in American political history by choosing a running mate so unqualified to be POTUS that his own handlers refuse to debate the issue because they have already learned once (Tucker vs Campbell Brown) that the indefensible cannot be defended.
Hmmmmmm other than that you may be on to something
Where ever you cut-and-pasted that from Scott, the author ought to learn how to avoid writing run-on sentences.
Mike Toreno,
… you agreed with my position on McCain’s history of immoral acts …
Further clarification: I didn’t agree with your position. I agreed that the questions you raised were valid questions, and I understood why you answered those questions differently than I did.
Therefore, you engage in convolutions and make excuses in order to avoid admitting that his behavior exhibits a degraded character.
The first time you said I was ducking the issues, and refusing to answer them; now you’re saying I’m answering them with convolutions and excuses.
Since I haven’t said anything to defend McCain on your specific points, I think you are confusing me with someone else.
McCain has led a generally dishonorable life for decades, that makes him dishonorable.
Once again, you are of course fully entitled to your opinion. And I would concede that compared to President Bush, Senator McCain is a dishonest person.
But compared to Senator Obama, McCain is a veritable Mother Theresa. For every “lie” or “flip-flop” on McCain’s part, I could come up with a half-dozen from Obama. If McCain is “dishonorable”, then Obama is off the charts.
Rob Ryan,
I’ve had a couple of speeding tickets and sometimes I have a drink or two.
When I asked you, “How do you know it’s worse?”, I didn’t mean to solicit a confession from you. I just wanted to know on what grounds you were evaluating Senator McCain’s divorce.
I find Senator McCain’s cheating and subsequent divorce to be disturbing. I would find it a whole lot more disturbing if it happened ten years ago instead of 28 years ago; I would find it a whole lot more disturbing if he refused to admit his culpability and the shamefulness of what he did.
And I would find it a whole lot more disturbing if he hadn’t gone through such a traumatic experience in Vietnam. His valor and sacrifice in Vietnam were of such magnitude that even the dishonor of his divorce only makes a small dent in the bigger picture. In other words, I’m not discounting what happened in his first marriage, but I am weighing it against what he did before and afterwards.
Yes. And I think his SCOTUS appointments will maintain the current balance, as I think the next couple of openings will be to replace left-leaners. Maybe he can even restore the pre-O’Connor retirement balance, especially if certain justices fall victim to high-fat diets or something.
I salute you, this is an excellent reason to vote for Senator Obama. An excellent reason for you, though, and not for me: I myself would prefer the kind of judges that a President McCain would presumably nominate.
Maybe you can open a Palin thread at your place, if you are still blogging.
Well, if I had any reason to start posting to my blog again, Gov. Palin would be at the top of my list of topics. I really like her a lot. I think our country is very fortunate to have people like her and President Bush in public life.
Scott,
he almost went to jail for taking bribes in Abscam …
That wasn’t Senator McCain. You’re probably thinking of Congressman John Murtha.
supported the initiation of an illegal and immoral war, supports the indefinite continuation of the same war …
You know, there are a few people who disagree with you about this “illegal and immoral” war business.
It’s funny how in April 2003, almost all the brave anti-war leaders in the Democratic party were all very much in sync with the war and kept their misgivings pretty much to themselves. It’s amazing how an insurgency and a terrorist campaign made it clear to these statesmen how “illegal and immoral” the war was all along.
Cheers,
Matthew
Out soldiers get shot at and the weaklings in Congress duck and run for cover. Newsflash… the bullets don’t travel THAT far!
Matthew, first you did avoid the issue by heading for the fainting couch at my supposed “incivility”. This is a common wingnut tactic used to silence opponents. Then you did respond to my points with convolutions and excuses.
You don’t point out examples of Obama’s supposed lies compared to McCain’s. This is because Obama does not have a record of lies, political expediency, and generally reprehensible character the way McCain does. You don’t care who is telling the truth and who isn’t and you don’t care who is an honorable man and who isn’t. You base your moral analysis on your desire to support McCain. Therefore you make excuses for McCain’s misconduct and seek to attribute misconduct to Obama. Because you avoid taking a morally consistent position, you don’t demonstrate that McCain is an honorable man, what you demonstrate is that you yourself are a worthless, lying, hypocritical piece of garbage.
Oh, Matthew, check this out. This (from the Carpetbagger Report) is just a list of McCain’s flip-flops and doesn’t count his lies. I think this demonstrates your claim that you can document 6 lies and flip-flops of Obama’s for every one of McCain’s demonstrates that not only are you a worthless, lying, hypocritical piece of garbage, you are lazy and retarded beyond all reckoning.
National Security Policy
1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.
3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.
6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.
Foreign Policy
7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it. Now, he’s for it again.
8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.
Military Policy
14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.
16. McCain was against additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he was for it.
17. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
18. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.
19. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.
20. McCain staunchly opposed Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timetable, and even blasted Mitt Romney for having referenced the word during the GOP primaries. In July, after Iraqi officials endorsed Obama’s policy, McCain said a 16-month calendar sounds like “a pretty good timetable.”
Domestic Policy
21. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
22. On Social Security, McCain said he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Soon after, asked about a possible increase in the payroll tax, McCain said there’s “nothing that’s off the table.”
23. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
24. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
25. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
26. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
27. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
28. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
29. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
30. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
31. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
32. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
33. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.
34. And on gay adoption, McCain initially said he’d rather let orphans go without families, then his campaign reversed course, and soon after, McCain reversed back.
35. In the Senate, McCain opposed a variety of measures on equal pay for women, and endorsed the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision. In July, however, McCain said, “I’m committed to making sure that there’s equal pay for equal work. That … is my record and you can count on it.”
36. McCain was against fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act before he was for it.
37. McCain was for affirmative action before he was against it.
38. McCain said the Colorado River compact will “obviously” need to be “renegotiated.” Six days later, McCain said, “Let me be clear that I do not advocate renegotiation of the compact.”
Economic Policy
39. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.
40. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.
41. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.
42. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
43. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
44. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
45. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.
46. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.
47. McCain was against massive government bailouts of “big banks” that “act irresponsibly.” He then announced his support for a massive government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Energy Policy
48. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.
49. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
50. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.
51. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.
52. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
53. McCain was for national auto emissions standards before he was against them.
Immigration Policy
54. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, he announced his opposition to the bill. In 2008, McCain switched back.
55. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
56. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”
Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law
57. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
58. McCain’s position was that the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
59. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
60. In June, McCain rejected the idea of a trial for Osama bin Laden, and thought Obama’s reference to Nuremberg was a misread of history. A month later, McCain argued the exact opposite position.
61. In June, McCain described the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush was “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” In August, he reversed course.
Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform
62. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
63. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
64. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
65. In May 2008, McCain approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. In July 2008, his campaign reversed course and said lobbyists could work for his campaign.
Politics and Associations
66. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)
67. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
68. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
69. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
70. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
71. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
72. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
73. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
74. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.
75. McCain was for presidential candidates giving speeches in foreign countries before he was against it.
76. McCain has been both for and against considering a pro-choice running mate for the Republican presidential ticket.
Mike Toreno,
Matthew, first you did avoid the issue by heading for the fainting couch at my supposed “incivility”. This is a common wingnut tactic used to silence opponents.
If I wanted to “silence” you, that would be extremely easy: I would simply skip over your comments, not read them, and not respond to you.
If I disagree with you, I am making an effort to engage your thoughts. I am paying you the respect of listening carefully, digesting your views, and writing my honest response.
You haven’t responded with “incivility” — you have responded with a paranoid blend of insults, hyperbole, and invective. I have given you the additional respect of disregarding all this noise that you put in the mix, and I have focused on what is worthy in your arguments. My main reward from you is more of the same.
You are one hurting puppy, my friend. Not because of your politics, which is perfectly fine and rational, as far as it goes. You are hurting because you view the people you talk to here as means to an end (scoring points in a debate), and not as persons worthy of your respect and consideration.
I would say “Shame on you!”, but I can’t even get annoyed over it; I just feel sorry for you and hope you can find a better way of coping with your demons.
Peace,
Matthew
P.S. If I’m going to diagnose you as a hurting puppy, I might as well give you a constructive suggestion that you might find useful.
If you find yourself doubting the honesty or the personal integrity of myself or anyone else because of what they say or don’t say, try staying focused on the facts (“I don’t think this, this, or this is true; I think that is true instead, and here’s why”; or “Are you sure about that, how do you know that?”).
If you shift the debate to accusations of dishonesty and bad motives, you’re not advancing anyone’s knowledge of what is in dispute, and you’re just creating a lot of heat and very little light. And what’s more, I’ve never encountered anyone in these comment threads whom I considered to be dishonest or commenting in bad faith (with one or two possible exceptions), so you are just barking up the wrong tree in any case if you go there.
All the best to you, insult-man ;)
Once again you claim the right to tell other people what they can and can’t say, and how they can and can’t express themselves. I would be only too pleased if you didn’t respond to my comments, because invariably, your responses are hypocritical lies. McCain’s moral degradation has been demonstrated; your convolutions and lies excusing his reprehensible acts don’t contribute to our knowledge of the situation, they contribute only to knowledge of your character. They teach us that you craft your moral principles to conform to the position you wish to take, rather than taking a position based on moral principles.
What you want is for your claims, made ex cathedra, to be accepted; you want to accuse Obama of numerous lies and 456 flip-flops without providing a single example, and for others to accept your claims as legitimate and carefully and patiently correct them. You don’t deserve that consideration; you have not earned it. The only way to judge morality is by evaluating actions. McCain consistently engages in immoral actions; therefore, he is an immoral man. Your shifting standards of morality, taken on only in service of your desire to excuse McCain’s immorality, contribute nothing to our knowledge of the subject, they contribute only to our knowledge of your character, namely, our knowledge that you are a lying hypocrite.
We know McCain abandoned his first wife to become a gigolo. We don’t need to hear your explanations of how that doesn’t matter. We don’t care what you think about the subject. We know McCain tells lies. We don’t need to hear your unsupported claims that other people tell worse lies. We don’t care what you think. We know the facts. We know how we judge the facts. We don’t need you to tell us that we need to abandon our system of judging actions based on their nature in favor of a McCain-centered system of morality. We don’t care about your idiotic and hypocritical system of morality.
Mike Toreno,
What you want is for your claims, made ex cathedra, to be accepted; you want to accuse Obama of numerous lies and 456 flip-flops without providing a single example, and for others to accept your claims as legitimate and carefully and patiently correct them.
Yes, I can see how that would bother you, if it were true.
But you make the mistake of reading too much into my (and others’) comments.
My comments are what I believe. Sometimes I explain them and defend them in great detail, sometimes I don’t. But I don’t expect anyone to accept them just because I write and post them. I know some will agree and some will disagree, and I have no desire (or capability) to control what anyone else thinks.
In short, I’m sharing my perspective, your mileage may vary. I can’t prove anything to anyone, so I don’t think you should expect me to try.
Once again you claim the right to tell other people what they can and can’t say, and how they can and can’t express themselves.
You’re missing a very important distinction. I’m not telling you what you can and cannot say. I’m telling you that it is wrong (and counterproductive to boot) for you to personally attack me or anyone else on this comment thread.
You can continue to ignore my advice if you wish. I can’t stop you. But I wasn’t trying to stop you, I’m just trying to persuade you to improve your ways. Freedom of speech certainly includes my right to attempt to persuade you.
More importantly, I’m not trying to hurt you or hurt your feelings. I’m paying you the respect of assuming you are intelligent and caring enough to want to do the right thing. Perhaps if you sleep on it and mull things over, you won’t feel so defensive about these things tomorrow.
Take care,
Matthew
But Matthew, your perspective isn’t important. No one cares whether you think in a particular way. The only relevant information is why you think what you think, what facts you base your opinion on, the importance you assign to those facts, and the process you follow to reach a conclusion. The fact that your support for McCain is based on lies and hypocrisy is much more important than your opinion., because it gives us insight into McCain’s character. If McCain’s supporters can’t support him without lying, what does that tell us about him? If McCain’s supporters can’t praise his character without adapting their moral standards to excuse and ignore his moral defects, what does that tell us about him?
I don’t care what your perspective is, only how you came to it. You came to it by lies and hypocrisy. You first determined that you wanted to support McCain and made whatever moral adjustments were needed to allow you to pretend that McCain is a morally decent person. You decided you didn’t want to support Obama, and decided that you would tell whatever lies you needed to provide a reason for that lack of support. You have claimed that you can identify 456 flip-flops of Obama’s. Let’s hear them.
Again, your pompous pronouncements of your perspective, together with promises of factual support for it (which support never seems to be forthcoming) aren’t important. What’s important is that your arguments are hypocritical lies.
Mike Toreno,
Well, your latest comment isn’t quite as outrageous as your previous ones, so I’m pleased you’ve calmed down a little.
But you’re still so excited by my alleged crimes against reason that you contradict yourself right out of the gate.
First two sentences:
But Matthew, your perspective isn’t important. No one cares whether you think in a particular way.
Next sentence:
The only relevant information is why you think what you think, what facts you base your opinion on, the importance you assign to those facts, and the process you follow to reach a conclusion.
In other words, the “only relevant information” (according to you) is my perspective! But it is “relevant” without being “important”.
Here’s another suggestion, Mike.
After you have slept on things and mulled things over, take any comments you care to post and use the Preview button. Read your post, but pretend that I am the one who wrote it, not yourself. Critique it ruthlessly and edit out the obvious errors and self-contradictions.
When you’re done with that, you should cut all personal attacks as well, but apparently you still disagree with me on that.
You have claimed that you can identify 456 flip-flops of Obama’s. Let’s hear them.
Actually, I claimed that Senator Obama has committed a half-dozen flip-flops and lies for each one of John McCain’s. I would say the list of Obama’s “lies” is much, much longer than the list of his flip-flops.
While Senator Obama’s list of flip-flop’s is already pretty impressive, his record of repeatedly voting “present” in the Illinois state legislature (instead of “yes” or “no”) has meant that Senator McCain has had a more than 20-year headstart on making public commitments on the most controversial issues (McCain joined the Congress in 1983; Obama in 2005). So Senator Obama may not have actually overtaken Senator McCain on flip-flops yet.
But not because he isn’t trying (click the links to read articles):
“Top Obama Flip-Flops”, from the Washington Post
“Comprehensive Obama flip flop list”, with updates and video clips
“Obama’s flip-flops”, by the Associated Press
So how about his “lies”?
It’s hard to know where to begin, and where to end. And the truth is, what I consider to be a lie or a “lie” is not what you would consider to be a lie, so it’s actually not going to produce a miraculous agreement between us if I start cataloguing Senator Obama’s dishonesty and disingenuousness.
A good starting point might be the candidates’ speeches at their respective conventions. I was struck by how dishonest Senator Obama was throughout his, and how candid and truthful Senator McCain appeared to be. But once again, I doubt that my judgement of Senator Obama’s speech is likely to be shared by you, so I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this and many/most other instances of what I judge to be his dishonesty.
You first determined that you wanted to support McCain and made whatever moral adjustments were needed to allow you to pretend that McCain is a morally decent person. You decided you didn’t want to support Obama, and decided that you would tell whatever lies you needed to provide a reason for that lack of support.
Actually, Senator McCain was my second to last choice in the primaries, ahead of Congressman Ron Paul. Like yourself, I had doubts about his political integrity and his honesty. What really stuck in my craw, though, was his backing of “campaign-finance reform”, which I consider to be a disaster on several levels.
And actually, Senator Obama was my favorite in the Democratic primaries, and I was excited by the prospect of an African-American president. For quite a while, I was leaning toward supporting Senator Obama over Senator McCain.
You decided you didn’t want to support Obama, and decided that you would tell whatever lies you needed to provide a reason for that lack of support.
You know, if I did have to come up with lies to attack Senator Obama, I wouldn’t be attacking him, I’d be supporting him.
And maybe one day, if Senator Obama regrets his dishonesty and disavows it, I will be an Obama supporter once again. But if President Clinton’s administration can be used as a guide, I should not be hopeful that Obama would reform his ways, whether he wins or not.
All the best,
Matthew
The Wapo article includes only 5 claimed flip-flops, and I know the characterization as a flip-flop of Obama’s decision not to accept public financing is a lie.
That wingnut site you linked to, the first two claims of identifying position changes by Obama are lies, so I didn’t read further.
The AP article, the claim that Obama has changed his position on withdrawing from Iraq is a lie, so I didn’t read further, except that I did happen to notice this:
“He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush’s program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.”
So by disagreeing with some other people, Obama is supposed to have flip-flopped. I think we can pretty safely ignore the article.
And this from you is even more worthless than your average:
“I was struck by how dishonest Senator Obama was throughout his, and how candid and truthful Senator McCain appeared to be.”
You mean, you didn’t want to believe what Obama was saying, and you did want to believe what McCain was saying. A lie is a statement contradicting facts known to the speaker.
If you want to demonstrate that Obama has lied, you have to point out statements he has made, and facts demonstrating those statements to be untrue. Claims by a worthless, lying, hypocritical idiot such as yourself are utterly unpersuasive.
Actually, I claimed that Senator Obama has committed a half-dozen flip-flops and lies for each one of John McCain’s. I would say the list of Obama’s “lies” is much, much longer than the list of his flip-flops.
Hmmm, several problems with an objective sounding statement like this:
1. Some lies are bigger than others. For example, considering McCain’s campaign has made fighting pork one of its major themes it’s a pretty big lie to continue to allow his running mate to claim she opposed the bridge to nowhere.
2. Even assuming you can properly score big lies and little lies you need a comprehensive list of all lies to assert something like there’s 6 Obama lies to 1 McCain lie. You can easily fake that ‘result’ by being hyper-picky on Obama and ignoring lots of McCain lies.
Boonton,
The biggest problem with cataloguing “lies”: deciding how skeptical to be of a politician’s assertion. Crank up the skepticism and a casual misstatement becomes a calculating deception; be generous with allocating benefit of the doubt, and the most bald-faced double-speak dissipates like the fog burning off in the morning sun.
And when the skepticism is based partly or wholly on partisan political beliefs, then one candidate’s lies will often be the photographic negative of the other candidate’s dogma, and vice-versa.
There is no easy or obvious way to get around this, either, as my exchanges with Mr. Toreno have been demonstrating.
Mike Toreno,
I believe we have, de facto, found some common ground. We have agreed to disagree, have we not ;)
Peace, insult-man,
all the best to you.
Boonton, you leave out the biggest problem with Matthew’s assertion, which that he doesn’t point out any of Obama’s supposed lies. He says he can identify 6 Obama lies and flip-flops for every one of McCain’s, I put up a list of 76 McCain flip-flops, he puts up lists of 4 or 5 supposed Obama flip-flops, some of which are based in differences between Obama’s positions and those of others. Let’s be generous, let’s say Matthew has identified 5 Obama flip-flops and let’s restrict ourselves only to the list of McCain’s flip-flops and ignore his lies, such as his claim that Obama will raise taxes, Bridge to Nowhere, fundamentals of economy strong, Palin and McCain champions of reform, Pailin crusader against earmarks, and on and on and on. So just counting McCain’s 76 flip-flops and ignoring his lies, here’s the scorecard:
Number of lies and flip-flops needed:
456
Number of flip-flops claimed by Matthew’s sources:
5
Number of lies needed:
451
Number of lies identified:
0Matthew’s supposed excuse for the difficulty of identifying lies of politicians is just that, an excuses. An honest person identifies lies of his friends in the same way he identifies lies of his enemies – by an examination of the statement made and the relevant facts. It’s not hard, not to somebody who’s honest. The fact that Matthew says it’s hard tells us everything about him that we need to know.
Mike Toreno,
An honest person identifies lies of his friends in the same way he identifies lies of his enemies – by an examination of the statement made and the relevant facts. It’s not hard, not to somebody who’s honest.
I didn’t say it was always hard to tell the truth from falsehood (although frequently it is). But determining truthfulness from dishonesty is almost always hard, often impossible.
Why? Because lying means that the liar knows what the truth is, and intends to deceive by telling a falsehood or omitting the truth. Being wrong is not sufficient.
And if you and I or someone else cannot even take the first step, agreeing on what the truth is, then we will never agree on who is lying.
Now if you disagree with me, one of us is wrong. But both of us could be honest, provided that we both believe what we say.
Here’s an example:
Politician A says that the surge in Iraq has succeeded. Politician B says that the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
Who is telling the truth? Who is not telling the truth? Is the politician who is not telling the truth lying?
Politician C says that the surge in Iraq has succeeded “beyond anyone’s imagination”. Politician D says that the surge in Iraq has not succeeded “beyond anyone’s imagination”. Which one is correct? Is anyone lying?
The fact that Matthew says it’s hard [to identify lies] tells us everything about him that we need to know.
As I just said, it’s a lot easier to identify apparent lies from my own perspective than it is to identify genuine lies that everyone will agree are lies. In fact, it is probably impossible to identify lies to everyone’s satisfaction.
Now, you say you disagree with me. Does that make you a liar? Does that “tell us everything we need to know” about Mike Toreno? No, and to say otherwise is very, very silly.
You and I are both Americans, we are both human beings. If our political views are driving you to consider honest disagreement as a species of dishonest immorality, then I suggest you take a slow, deep breath and consider what we have in common as opposed to what seems to divide us.
You and I are brothers, or at least cousins, even if you don’t want to admit it.
Peace and love,
Matthew
Matthew
The biggest problem with cataloguing “lies”: deciding how skeptical to be of a politician’s assertion. Crank up the skepticism and a casual misstatement becomes a calculating deception; be generous with allocating benefit of the doubt, and the most bald-faced double-speak dissipates like the fog burning off in the morning sun.
False modesty I thinks. You asserted quite boldly that the ratio of Obama lies to McCain lies is 6 to 1. You didn’t assert that you had found 6 lies to 1 lie out of some unknown larger population of lies, you asserted a ratio. This implies pretty directly that you have hard numbers to back this up or at least knew of someone who did just as if I told you I had lost 4.3 pounds over the last year that would imply I had some type of scale to weigh myself or had used someone else’s scale.
Now when it looks like you may get called out you suddenly convert to postmodernism….how can we know what a lie is when we poor souls are hopelessly blinded by our own partisan outlooks!!!!! Wooo is us!
I will give you credit, you do embody the current stance the Republican party has in general towards truth. Whether it’s a Christian stance I’ll let others decide.
Uh-oh, now you’re calling me a liar too.
Does that mean McCain/Palin are putting the great state of New Jersey into play? :)
But my stance is hardly post-modernism: as far as I am concerned, Obama is easily six times as dishonest and flip-floppy as McCain. I believe that, but I also acknowledge that you and Mike do not. Rather than insist that I am objectively right and you guys are hopelessly confused, I am begging off that discussion, as is my prerogative.
If you want, however, you can tell me what you think the McCain/Obama dishonesty ratio is, and lay out the proof for your figure. I’d be very interested in seeing that — provided that wouldn’t be too hard.
Cheers,
Matthew
In other words, you believe in precise numbers connected to absolutely nothing. Sure you aren’t a closet postmodernist?
… you believe in precise numbers connected to absolutely nothing.
I believe in numbers connected to the mouths of Senators McCain and Obama. My numbers are different from yours, but I am sure my numbers are correct.
Speaking of which, what are your numbers? What is the McCain/Obama ratio in your opinion?
And remember to provide proof — I want proof, please.
Boonton, once again Matthew fails to produce any examples of Obama’s supposed lies, yet the lack of examples does not shake his confidence that such lies exist, and does not diminish his insistence that you accept the reality that only he sees. There’s a word used to describe people who see things no one else does. Crazy.
I don’t insist you see anything, Mike. You’re the one doing all the insisting.
Peace out. And may the better candidate win.
Speaking of which, what are your numbers? What is the McCain/Obama ratio in your opinion?
Mondays it is 5.52 to 3.42
Tuesdays it is 3.21 to 4
Wednesdays it is 7.893 to 2
Thursdays it is 10.5 to 5
Fridays it is 4.5 to 2
Sat. it is 3.3 to 1
Sundays it is 2.5 to 0.5
And remember to provide proof — I want proof, please.
Why I’ve never been so insulted in my life! You sir are a man of no honor or decency!
You sir are a man of no honor or decency!
I had plenty of honor and decency when I started in on this comment thread. But I’ve been giving it all away to Mr. Toreno, and he hasn’t sent any back my way yet :-)
As for the broader issue of apparently pulling numbers out of the ether:
The set of all statements by Senator McCain and Obama is way too vast to exhaustively scour for truth and falsehood, honesty and dishonesty.
The only practical way to determine some frequency of lies (or flip-flops) would be to take a sample of statements, comb through them, and then try to figure how representative the sample should be considered.
But that still doesn’t address at all any of the issues that I brought up in comments 79 and 81. Since there is no way to bring you or Mike or anyone else around to the same parameters or assumptions that I would be using, the whole exercise would be essentially useless as a means of cross-partisan persuasion.
I don’t think you can disagree with that, but prove me wrong if you wish.
Cheers,
Matthew
Post 88 demonstrated McCain has a higher lie ratio than Obama does. I’m perplexed at your inability to grasp simple, well demonstrated, facts.
“And may the better candidate win.”
Amen! That’s the kind of change I would welcome.
Boonton, those numbers are meaningless. Numbers are imaginary, they are essentially a way of talking about the things you are using them to describe. You have to describe what the numbers apply to if you wish to persuade anyone. You have to identify lies told by McCain (of which there are numerous examples) and lies told by Obama (of which Matthew claims there are examples, even though he won’t provide us with any). Only then can you assign numbers and compute a ratio.
Mike,
Clearly youare a numbers radical which is fine. This is America and you’re free to have all sorts of strange beliefs about numbers and stuff. But you can’t force those beliefs down other people’s throats. Both Matt and I have an equal right to beliefs about numbers. Quite frankly, I find your lack of respect for other belief systems disturbing. I just doesn’t feel right!
Boonton, you’re entitled to have any beliefs about numbers you want, but my approach is useful for describing phenomena, and yours isn’t. Your use of numbers is nothing more than a way of talking to yourself about yourself.
Hello! effexor side effects
Good day! rythmol sr
Do you think that Obama is going to win because the Republicans have such a bad candidate?
Why did John McCain make his final argument against Obama… coal?
That’s his closing argument? William Ayers, Rev. Wright, spreading the wealth, Born Alive, meeting dictators without preconditions, etc. all have to take a back seat so that McCain can go to Colorado and New Mexico to talk about coal? Does this more or less explain why he’s going to get his clock cleaned Tuesday?
hwbc bstcfe edpnf nkbcd nshkjmpdo nved xkrlshgm
hwbc bstcfe edpnf nkbcd nshkjmpdo nved xkrlshgm
I am amazed with it. It is a good thing for my research. Thanks
I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too…