John McCain and Truthiness

[elucidator]

Ah, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, you are such a disappointment.

I remember those romantic days, when we had some hope that at last....at long, long last....we had an honest conservative. One with whom we could argue with a straight face. Who would play square with us, and disagree from a position of integrity. Someone who might bring back and honest and respectable conservative party, one that doesn't make obscene power deals with bigots and scoundrels. One who tells the truth, at least so far as he sees it.

Well, not so much.

“Most Americans — when they are asked ‘do you want to set a date for withdraw?"
- John McCain, today on Meet The Press.

Not so, John. Not even close, John.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal

Result: 57% to 40% in favor of a timetable.

You're lying, John. Lying. I'd love to cut you some slack, yet again, but no, its not possible. There are polls right at hand, you can read, you got staffers who can read. You gotta know this just flat isn't true.

Imprisonment couldn't break you, torture couldn't break you. Ambition did you in.

Please go away now.

[RickJay]

Well, not so much.

“Most Americans — when they are asked ‘do you want to set a date for withdraw?"
- John McCain, today on Meet The Press.

Not so, John. Not even close, John.

Not even close to what? That quote doesn't mean anything in any language. What does it have to do with the rest of your OP?

[ElvisL1ves]

You can parse it narrowly enough to make it fit. See, the kind of people who want us to cut and run, dishonoring our dead, aren't real Americans anyway.

[Revtim]

Is part of the Meet The Press quote missing? I presume he went on to say that a majority of Americans were against a timetable?

[Mayo Speaks!]

Not even close to what? That quote doesn't mean anything in any language. What does it have to do with the rest of your OP?
Methinks elucidator mangled the quote. Perhaps he'll be back with the correct one.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Methinks elucidator mangled the quote. Perhaps he'll be back with the correct one.

That happens with elucidator on occasion, usually when he tries to be witty. Remember, the commentary is far more important than the facts.

[elucidator]

My bad, full quote is: " ‘do you want to set a date for withdraw?’ — they say no.”

Oh, and Dave? Bite me, Dave.

[XT]

Is there a cite for McCain's comments? Be nice to be able to put them in context before jumping the gun on whether he's lying or not...wouldn't it?

-XT

[elucidator]

What part of "today on Meet the Press" confuses you?

[XT]

If this is directed at me, the part where the OP links the transcript to his thread so we can read for ourselves exactly what was said...instead of having it filtered through the OP's perceptions. Is this an unreasonable request in your opinion 'luci? Are you saying no such transcript exists anywhere on the web?

-XT

[Boyo Jim]

Here is the transcript with the quote. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14390980/page/3/)

[XT]

I had already found it (took me, oh, 30 seconds at most), but thanks Jim.

-XT

[elucidator]

Happy now? (Thanks, Boyo)

[Boyo Jim]

What McCain means is that people say, "No, I don't want to set a witdrawal date for Ameican troops..." He leaves out the "... but SOMEBODY should." part. ;)

[elucidator]

Now, would anyone like to talk about John McCain? If it wouldn't distract too much from petty carping at me?

[XT]

Happy now? (Thanks, Boyo)

Not particularly, no. I don't know why the attitude when I asked YOU for a simple cite (that SHOULD have been in your original OP). Not like it took more than googling 'John McCain Meet The Press August 20'.

Anyway...


I believe this is the relevent paragraph to the OP:

SEN. McCAIN: I don’t think so, in this respect. Most of the Americans, when you’re asked, “Do you want to set a date for withdrawal,” say no. Of course they’re frustrated. All of us are frustrated. I’ve expressed my frustrations to you this morning. But they are not ready to face the consequences of failure by setting a date certain for withdrawal, and I believe that, that they are largely, although frustrated, recognize the consequences of failure.

And from 'luci's other cite:

"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal." Options rotated. Half sample, MoE ± 4.5.

As he quoted, as of 8/2-3/06, 57% presumably support a timetable, 40% presumably do not, with 4% unsure (and as noted above, its a half sample, with a MoE of plus or minus 4.5).

Sorry for the summary, just getting it all straight. Ok...so, to say that John McCain lied one would have to prove that he knew about this poll...and that he accepts it as fact. Myself, looking at the wording of the thing (and the fact that like most polls its black or white with no shades of grey allowed), I'd have to say I probably would have answered yes to a timetable too...but with a boat load of qualifiers that the poll does not allow for. So, does the poll accurately reflect the current prevailing attitude of US citizens, given that? Gods know...I sure don't. But...the key is, does John McCain THINK it does? I'd say, probably not.

So, did he REALLY lie? Does this one statement REALLY have any bearing on his supposed 'truthiness', and can we make any kind of judgement reguarding it? I'd say...no. FWIW. Of course, I could legitimately be considered biased on this one, as I actually DO like John McCain and could conceivably vote for the man in the next presidental election. Not a sure thing by any means...but its possible.

-XT

[Jackmannii]

Now, would anyone like to talk about John McCain? If it wouldn't distract too much from petty carping at me?But petty carping at you is such fun.

Besides, McCain could always claim that he was thinking of this poll. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062600250.html)


I agree though - it is reasonable to say that in his Meet The Press comment he was misrepresenting or overlooking the majority of recent polling data on the subject of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

[Boyo Jim]

Since the question has been asked twice over time in a CNN poll, and virtually the same question on a CBS poll (also in the OP link), and all 3 show a majority favor a timetable, abd the majority is getting larger... I'd have to agree this is proably a deliverate lie. I can't imagine he doesn't know this. Unless he's insulated himself in by-invitation-only Republican "town hall meetings" like Bush.

[Hamlet]

Bite me, Dave.What is "Open the pod bay door, Hal"?

I'll take movie quotes for $400, Alex.

[Boyo Jim]

...Besides, McCain could always claim that he was thinking of this poll. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062600250.html)...

That poll was WAY BACK in June. In those ancient days, news was circulated by carrier pigeon, and opinion always ran behind the headlines. Fortunately the Internet was built in July and we're all caught up now. ;)

[Boyo Jim]

This thread has inspired me to send this email to the editors of Meet the Press:
I was very sorry to hear Johm McCain make an unchallenged false statement on today's Meet the Press. He said, "Most of the Americans, when you’re asked, “Do you want to set a date for withdrawal,” say no."

Rcent polls, including ones by CNN and CBS, indicate a absolute majority of Americans believe a timetable should be set. He has either deliberately misstated the facts, or is asserting as truth something he wants to believe but has no factual basis for. We have had more than enough of that from the current inhabitants of the White House.

Recent polling data about Iraq, including responses to questions about a withdrawal timetable, can be found at pollingreport.com at the URL below.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[XT]

Let us know if they reply...could be interesting.

-XT

[Boyo Jim]

... As he quoted, as of 8/2-3/06, 57% presumably support a timetable, 40% presumably do not, with 4% unsure (and as noted above, its a half sample, with a MoE of plus or minus 4.5).

Sorry for the summary, just getting it all straight. Ok...so, to say that John McCain lied one would have to prove that he knew about this poll...and that he accepts it as fact. ...-XT

There are three poll results on that same page, dating back to June, all asking the same basic question about withdrawal, and all getting having the same result -- a majority, not just a plurality, favor a timetable of withdrawal, To believe MCCain doesn't know this is really pushing my limit of credulity.

[Boyo Jim]

Let us know if they reply...could be interesting.

-XT

Well, I'm not holding my breath. I cited polls from their competition, which makes a reply even less likely.

[samclem]

"The Liberman of the Right"

Right On!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/20/mccain-false-timetable/

[Alonzo John Blitz]

I don't usually get involved in political debates because I don't believe all the facts are ever given to us; politicians are liars, and power trumps money.

This dovetails with my firmly held belief that anyone seeking power - should not have it.

That being said, I once had high hopes for a reasonable, honest conservative in the person of John McCain. To his shame, he has become just another cocksucker kneeling at the zippers of big business and the religious right.

You only have to compare his interviews on the Daily Show before the 2004 election and his subsequent appearances there.

With this missive, for the reasons given above, I bow out of this discussion.

I regret that I was right.

[XT]

There are three poll results on that same page, dating back to June, all asking the same basic question about withdrawal, and all getting having the same result -- a majority, not just a plurality, favor a timetable of withdrawal, To believe MCCain doesn't know this is really pushing my limit of credulity.

Playing devils advocate, I think you are making some assumptions and then drawing conclusions from them. Your first assumption is that, in fact, John McCain DOES know about these polls...and knows of no others that contridict them. Perhaps that pushes the limits of your own credulity to think that he does not know of them, but I think its reasonable that he might not know of them...while perhaps his staff does.

The second assumption is, assuming for a moment you are correct and he DOES know of them, that he accepts them as accurate and fact....as you obviously do. That he accepts the question as validly put, that he accepts the methodology, and that he finds the conclusions wrt the current mood of the American people in line with what you obviously draw from the poll.


All this said, I will fall back on my standard response to when politicians are (seemingly or factually) caught short...'Is he a politician? Were his lips moving? Then obviously he was lying!'.

-XT

[Boyo Jim]

Yes, I suppose that it IS merely an assumption that a presidential candidate keeps track of what the American people think about the most important issue of the times.

More's the pity.

[Boyo Jim]

One more thing. It's an even bigger assumption on your part that he understands statistical analysis well enough to accept or reject the results of certain polls based on their methodology.

[samclem]

.


All this said, I will fall back on my standard response to when politicians are (seemingly or factually) caught short...'Is he a politician? Were his lips moving? Then obviously he was lying!'.

-XT Are you debating with yourself here?

[XT]

Am I Samclem?

-XT

[XT]

Yes, I suppose that it IS merely an assumption that a presidential candidate keeps track of what the American people think about the most important issue of the times.

True, though you make a good point here. He SHOULD be up to date on the latest polls. Of course, I don't know what OTHER poll data he could be looking at...or how much stock he puts in that series of polls either.

One more thing. It's an even bigger assumption on your part that he undersYes, I suppose that it IS merely an assumption that a presidential candidate keeps track of what the American people think about the most important issue of the times. tands statistical analysis well enough to accept or reject the results of certain polls based on their methodology.

lol...good point. We all make assumptions.

-XT

[John Mace]

Yes, I suppose that it IS merely an assumption that a presidential candidate keeps track of what the American people think about the most important issue of the times.
No one is a "presidential candidate" yet, except maybe Biden since he's already announced. At any rate, McCain is only a presdential candidate in the minds of reporters and news junkies (like us).

I saw this interview. Too bad Russert's stand-in (David Gregory?) didn't have the poll numbers to counter McCainwith. If they weren't on the tip of his tongue, I guess I can forgive McCain for not knowing them either. Did McCain lie? Maybe, but we really don't have enough info to know. Had he blown the poll numbers off as "liberal media bias", then he would've gotten a lot more than a :rolleyes: from me.

[Boyo Jim]

He is not an "announced" presidential candidate, but nevertheless he is a presidential candidate. I recognize that is an opinion, but it is widely shared, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/20/news/mccain.php) I think by McCain himself.

[elucidator]

No one is a "presidential candidate"....
Walks like, talks like, swims like, feathers, quacks...a witch! Or a duck.

[Revenant Threshold]

Yeah, I too have to disagree that the person in question announcing their candidacy is what makes them a candidate. At the very least, they must have had discussions with their family and friends (not to mention staff, other party members, groups who might lend their support) beforehand. Plus, the running process doesn't start in the lead-up to the election - potential candidates are going to be making the right political moves now, to build up support from the people and from the party...like John McCain is doing, among others.

[XT]

Like Hillary (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/20/coverstory.tm/index.html)? :p Yet, I've heard numerous Dems on this board say that Hillary running is a Republican wetdream...no basis in reality.

Whether McCain will become a candidate is up in the air. He probably DOES however have trial balloons out, and the Boyo Jim's point that he probably is at least passingly aware of the various polls reguarding Iraq is at least plausable.

I still don't think you can conclusively call the man a liar based on this interview though (leaving aside the moving lips thing)...but for my part I can see how its plausable one could do so.

-XT

[Merijeek]

Am I Samclem?


When defending a failing position you may as well try changing the frame of the discussion.

You're learning well. Since you've now reframed your entire world view, I assume we'll not see you defending another politician. Correct?

-joe

[David Simmons]

I too am tired of McCain who seems to have become just another pandering politician.

elucidator is correct that the polls in his cite that asked about a timetable showed that the majority of those polled favored onel. However, I just watched a replay on msnbc.com of the Meet The Press interview and McCain didn't say where he got the numbers for his claim that a majority didn't want a time. Maybe his own private poll, or Fox, who knows?

However there was one interesting exchange. McCain compared our actions in moving troops around to the latest hot spot with a video game where heads keep popping up all over the place and you must keep knocking them down. He strongly disagreed that this was a winning method and said more troops were needed so as to simultaneously keep order everywhere.

The interviewer then showed a clip of the RNC chairman, Mehlman, who said that moving troops around was a strategy of "adaptating for victory."

When directly asked if Mehlman was wrong (translation-full of shit) about moving forces around to put out the latest fire being "adapting for victory", McCain waffled. He wandered off into a paean about what a magnificent military force we had in Iraq and how dedicated the command was to the US without ever answering the question. And the interviewer let him off the hook.

[Squink]

McCain waffled. He wandered off into a paean about what a magnificent military force we had in Iraq and how dedicated the command was...Yes, to paraphrase Chuck Hagel, John McCain has lost his way (http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/08/20/local/doc44e8d9b0d8bd5012406832.txt).

[David Simmons]

And by the way, the interviewer also let him off the hook on the poll results as to a timetable. As on the SDMB, when a factual claim is made, a cite should be asked for.

A simple, "Senator, what poll are you using as the basis for your claim?" should suffice.

[David Simmons]

The tragic thing is, you can't compare McCain to the ideal and reject him. You have to compare him to who's available and running for office. Sad to say, he might be in the upper stratum of that group.

As I have said before, the American experiment in self-government just might be in real trouble at the moment.

[wring]

The tragic thing is, you can't compare McCain to the ideal and reject him.
so, you're saying you run with the McCain you have, and not with the McCain you wish you had?

[elucidator]

...As I have said before, the American experiment in self-government just might be in real trouble at the moment.
If the people lead, the leaders will follow. Collectively speaking, they are our bitch.

[elucidator]

Are you debating with yourself here?
Libertarians. They're like that. Nobody knows why, science is baffled.

[Zoe]

John Mace: I saw this interview. Too bad Russert's stand-in (David Gregory?) didn't have the poll numbers to counter McCainwith. If they weren't on the tip of his tongue, I guess I can forgive McCain for not knowing them either.

John, you see no difference in not citing polls and in misciting polls? David Gregory's purpose was to interview McCain, not to debate him.

A United States Senator has no business being uniformed or making false claims about what reputable polls are showing. After all, he is claiming to know.

I was clinging to a little bit of hope for McCain. Nyah. Same ole same ole. It's all about public relations. The Convenient Lie.

[David Simmons]

so, you're saying you run with the McCain you have, and not with the McCain you wish you had?Not necessarily McCain. Right now he wouldn't be on my list. For me to selecet him it would have to be a pretty shabbly list of possibilities. On the other hand, such a shabby list wouldn't exactly be a surprise to me. You can only select from among those actually on the ballot.If the people lead, the leaders will follow. Collectively speaking, they are our bitch.Maybe so, but the time delay is unconscionably long. By the time some of them find out which way the people are leading, they are out of office.

[Boyo Jim]

At one point I would have considered voting for McCain if he was facing Hillary. I am reasonably sure that I would vote for almost any other Democrat over McCain. Now (not because of this particular misstatement, of course) I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

I have some small hope, not based on any real evidence, that for a change I can vote FOR rather than against a candidate. Carter was the last president I voted FOR. I think he was the last president who sincerely wanted more for the American public than for his own agrandizerment.. Odds are I was wrong even then, but it FELT good.

Is it too early to start a new thread called, "How will the Democrats fuck up THIS election?"?

[Oakminster]

Think you have to really try making a mountain out of a molehill to call this a lie. Polls are not the ultimate arbiters of truth on matters of opinion. There's no evidence to suggest McCain knew of these polls and believed in them. For that matter, there's no reason to assume these polls are accurate without looking at the methods used in conducting the poll. Maybe he had other polls. Maybe he was arguing from his own opinion based on what others have told him. Maybe he was just wrong.

Bottom line, McCain is probably going to be the next POTUS. There may be reasons to knock him, but this ain't one of them.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I was clinging to a little bit of hope for McCain. Nyah. Same ole same ole. It's all about public relations. The Convenient Lie.

And that has made you lose all hope? Well then, you had better get set for some serious disillusionment, because his opponent won't be any different.

[FriarTed]

"The Liberman of the Right"

Right On!



Hmmmmm... while I'm hoping to vote for McCain-Rice in 2008, I could get behind McCain-Lieberman!

[XT]

FWIW I put in an email to Factcheck.org giving the relevent details as well as the gist of the complaint. Thus far they haven't done an article on it (only been a day of course :))...but if they feel he really DID lie (or distort the truth) I have no doubt they will do an article on it.

I have a hard time believing that the majority of the outrage here is coming from folks supposedly on the fence about McCain but who are now totally disillusioned about the man. This just doesn't seem to be that big a deal to warrent the amount of outrage being shown. When he starts coming out regularly in political speeches saying that the majority of American's support the war in Iraq or something thats a bit easier to prove he's deliberatly lieing over, THEN is the time to start seriously worrying. I think that on this question things are ambiguous enough to cut the man a bit of slack on it...or at least to withhold passing a damning judgement based solely on this.

If someone is going to get their panties in a bunch over something this minor, I have trouble believing they are going to be able, with good consious, to vote for ANYONE...as pretty much every politician I've ever heard of distorts facts, lies, or is just wrong at some point. One has only to cruise over to Factcheck and look around to see that this is not something that only one party or one politician does regularly...

-XT

[whole bean]

He also got off easy for his criticism for everything about the Bush administration except Bush. He criticized Rumsfeld, said he was making mistakes. He then said something to the effect of the president is just listening to his advisors (of whom, Rumsfeld is one). Then he said he knew Bush was doing what it takes to win the war in Iraq. This doesn't follow.

here's part of the exchnage:SEN. McCAIN: Well, it’s obvious that I have not shared the administration’s view. I’ve had strong differences with Secretary Rumsfeld on this issue and other aspects of the war. The, the, the standing down of the Army, rather than hiring them. The, the failure to do a series of measures which were important as part of our effort to control Iraq.

here's some more:SEN. McCAIN: I, I think it’s got to do with the decisions that are made in the Pentagon. And I think that that’s the sum total of it, and the advice that the president gets from the people that are on his team. And I don’t think it’s good advice. But I know that the president’s committed to win. I know that he will do what’s necessary. Many times he has said we will do whatever is necessary and I believe him.

but he's following what you have called bad advice, how is that "doing whatever is necessary," John?

[XT]

whole bean: Now THAT, I'd say, IS a valid criticism.

-XT

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

whole bean: Now THAT, I'd say, IS a valid criticism.

-XT Yes, it sure is. One can also criticize him for the major sucking up he's been doing to the holier than thou troglodytes who've hijacked the Republican Party on social issues. Things like that cast everything else he says and does in a less flattering light, make one more inclined to look for pandering rather than principle in what he says.

[Squink]

the holier than thou troglodytes who've hijacked the Republican Party on social issues.::nitpick::

I don't recall anyone holding the party at gunpoint.
In fact I think the trogs were invited in.
That makes the current situation more of a 'hot date' than a hijacking.

::nitpick::

[elucidator]

XT would like to change the subject to the insincerity of McCain's critics. Good luck with that.

[John Mace]

John, you see no difference in not citing polls and in misciting polls? David Gregory's purpose was to interview McCain, not to debate him.
Do you watch Meet the Press often? The moderator typically challenges the interviewee if he (the moderator) thinks the interviewee has made a mistake. For example, they usually have archive footage of previous statements made and will throw them up if it looks the interveiwer is stating something different.

A United States Senator has no business being uniformed or making false claims about what reputable polls are showing. After all, he is claiming to know
Yes, it's disapointing. If this one thing makes you suddenly not like McCain, then I don't see how you could like any pol. I'd be surprised if there was any Senator who hasn't made this kind of mistake if they've been interviewed as often as McCain.

[XT]

XT would like to change the subject to the insincerity of McCain's critics. Good luck with that.

Would he? Interesting. And here I thought he was only pointing it out, not changing the subject to it. Since he also talked about the subject at hand. YMMV there though 'luci. I think YOU'D like to change the subject to what XT is trying to do (in your own mind) because frankly your OP was lame. But hell, thats just MHO.

-XT

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

::nitpick::

I don't recall anyone holding the party at gunpoint.
In fact I think the trogs were invited in.
That makes the current situation more of a 'hot date' than a hijacking.

::nitpick:: You have a point there. :)

[Damuri Ajashi]

The founding fathers warned us that there will be times when there would be a lack of enlightened statesmen.


The tragic thing is, you can't compare McCain to the ideal and reject him. You have to compare him to who's available and running for office. Sad to say, he might be in the upper stratum of that group.

As I have said before, the American experiment in self-government just might be in real trouble at the moment.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I happen to think Carter got crushed by the economy (remember stagflation) and he was the man who could have brought peace to the middle east (remember when Egypt/Israel was the big issue?

I don't think its ever too early to start a thread called "How will the Democrats fuck up THIS election?" I think I would start pitting the 2012 election in the next few weeks.

Carter was the last president I voted FOR. I think he was the last president who sincerely wanted more for the American public than for his own agrandizerment.. Odds are I was wrong even then, but it FELT good.

Is it too early to start a new thread called, "How will the Democrats fuck up THIS election?"?

[rjung]

I don't think its ever too early to start a thread called "How will the Democrats fuck up THIS election?"
True dat.

I think it's just the fundamental nature of the beast; if the Democrats had pols who were the cold, calculating, laser-focused election-oriented schemers who knew how to manipulate events in order to win... they'd be Republicans. ;)

Or, as Douglas Adams wrote, "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Or, as Douglas Adams wrote, "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

I agree: Carter, Clinton, Johnson...

Oh, I get it, you were taking shots at Republicans! My bad for not getting it right away.

[rjung]

I agree: Carter, Clinton, Johnson...

Oh, I get it, you were taking shots at Republicans!
I was? Where did I say that?

[XT]

I was? Where did I say that?

You didn't. Methinks however, that your past posting record has caught up to you and perhaps incorrect (this time ;) ) assumptions were made as to your intent...

-XT

[John Mace]

I agree: Carter, Clinton, Johnson...

Oh, I get it, you were taking shots at Republicans! My bad for not getting it right away.
That may have been one of the few times he wasn't. I read it as applicable to anyone.

[Damuri Ajashi]

True dat.

I think it's just the fundamental nature of the beast; if the Democrats had pols who were the cold, calculating, laser-focused election-oriented schemers who knew how to manipulate events in order to win... they'd be Republicans. ;)

Or, as Douglas Adams wrote, "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."


I don't think we can say that Democrats are good and pure and Republicans kick puppies. Of course it is a little easier now that the southern Democrats have just switched over to the Republican party.

[Shodan]

I think it's just that McCain is one of those Republicans that liberals can support - in theory. He is fine, as long as some other Republican is running - then they can make bipartisan noises about how they could vote for a reasonable, mainstream guy like McCain.

Then he starts to campaign. In order to get elected, he has to try to appeal to other groups in addition to liberals, and then they can sigh and say that he has sold out and vote for the Democrat anyway.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Piffle. There was never any real threat that lefties were going to vote in droves of Big John, his policies and politics are nowhere near acceptable. What we admired was his transitory state of straight-forwardness. That, and the fact that he dissed GeeDub when he richly deserved it.

There was a lot to admire. But he's thrown all that overboard, apparently from a raging case of Presidential Fever. When he had no chance at all, he was willing to be candid and upfront, had nothing to lose, could look Falwell right in the eye and say "Fuck you, hatemonger". He's fallen victim to believing his own press releases, believing that he has a credible shot at it. So he genuflects and kisses the ring.

What imprisonment and torture could not accomplish, ambition could. McCain corrupted himself. Alas.

[mhendo]

Then he starts to campaign. In order to get elected, he has to try to appeal to other groups in addition to liberals, and then they can sigh and say that he has sold out and vote for the Democrat anyway.Yeah, how dare they stand up for their values when McCain starts courting ultra-conservatives and religious fundamentalists. If he has even one liberal policy, they are, of course, obliged to vote for him.

Elucidator, i'm not sure there was ever much for liberals or leftists to admire about McCain, politically speaking. Sure, he has some appealing personal qualities, and that can take a person a long way in politics. But scraping beneath the amiable personality and patina of media-hyped "integrity" has nearly always revealed policy positions that sit very comfortably at the conservative end of the political spectrum. Hell, even McCain-Feingold, one of the things that is often held up as a defining liberal moment for McCain, was just another piece of watered-down legislation that pleased neither opponents nor supporters of true campaign finance reform.

[Damuri Ajashi]

What imprisonment and torture could not accomplish, ambition could.

I'm gonna use that.

[Ludovic]

Am I Samclem?You are Devo!

[rjung]

I don't think we can say that Democrats are good and pure and Republicans kick puppies.
I've long preferred "Democrats are stupid, but Republicans are evil" myself. At least you (meaning ordinary citizens) can outsmart the stupid folks...

(And before anyone asks, GWB may be stupid, but Cheney and Rove are evil. ;) )

Methinks however, that your past posting record has caught up to you and perhaps incorrect (this time ;) ) assumptions were made as to your intent...
If I spend more time railing against Republicans, it's only because they're the ones doing more damage to the country in the last 20 years than the Dems. Put the Dems in power for a decade and watch me rip them a few new ones too.

[handsomeharry]

JohnI was clinging to a little bit of hope for McCain. Nyah. Same ole same ole. It's all about public relations. The Convenient Lie.


NO, you're way wrong. He is ten million times worse than the same ole, etc...
He is exactly the same, only he is more longwinded that Lyndon Johnson and more tepid than....what was his name...Gore? Lieberman? Quayle? Cheney?
Each time he speaks, I'm waiting for a point, and he drones on and on and on and on, (typing etc, and bolding it and italicizing, etc...seems so woefully inadequate!!!!) and after all of that droning he finally gets to the point and his point is that everybody should do good and there are other opinions and he will not be a person that isn't tolerant of tolerant people, and that the Constitutional process will be carried on by Constitutional people, and he believes in doing things the way they should be done, and then he will bask in the accolades of the interviewer.

Look, I'm so right wing that I make Barry Goldwater look like Fidel Castro's lovechild with Joseph Stalin, and I'd marry Hillary, and start a move to get Bill Clinton back into office as a lifetime king, only if he were advised by the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderburgers, with life and death power over all of the United States, before I'd vote for McCain. He is one of the few politicians that actually make my skin crawl. (Please, let's have 50 Jimmy Carter's before one McCain.)

Did McCain do anything other than get captured by the enemy, and somehow parlay that into a political career?


hh

[Squink]

Each time he speaks, I'm waiting for a point, and he drones on and on and on and on, (typing etc, and bolding it and italicizing, etc...seems so woefully inadequate!!!!) and after all of that droning he finally gets to....You make him sound like Ted Kennedy at the 1980 Democratic national convention; on and on and on and on and on... with no real payoff.

[handsomeharry]

You make him sound like Ted Kennedy at the 1980 Democratic national convention; on and on and on and on and on... with no real payoff.
Except for the fact that "no real payoff" is an epiphany compared to when McCain speaks. And, let's be real, you only had five 'ons' and one set of the ad infinitum periods at the end of your post.

;)

hh