John McCain is dead: Let's discuss his legacy

Politics & Elections
101

If you divorce morality from its consequences, it ceases to have any meaning. McCain thought he was doing the right thing? So do most people we rightfully label moral monsters. McCain was wrong, the consequences were horrendous, and if he thought he was right (up to 2018, no less, where it was obvious to anyone paying attention that the Iraq war was the worst foreign policy move since at least Vietnam for at least a decade) he was either an idiot or he didn’t give a damn about Iraqi lives, in which case he’s evil.

But most of my post was about his decisions since 2016. Which are equally indefensible. McCain is not some legendary centrist. He’s about as rotten as any other republican senator - a little worse than Collins, a little better than McConnell. That’s not praiseworthy. “Less awful than Mitch McConnell” is a painfully low bar to clear.

102

He’s no centrist, no, but he is a man who did what he did based on his convictions and not on political gain. He was trying to find a path to citizenship for the undocumented while most Democrats were willing to talk tough about illegals for political advantage. While other politicians talked about fighting corruption only when they weren’t the majority, McCain railed against earmarks and ethics violations whether the perps were Democrats or Republicans.

You’re right that you can’t divorce morality from consequences. But if this is true, then wouldn’t Jimmy Carter be an immoral man? Or is the conventional wisdom correct that he was a good man who made a lot of people suffer because he was a bad leader with bad judgment? McCain’s judgment was often questionable. Like Carter, he suffered from a lot of moral certainty and wasn’t all that tolerant of those who disagreed with him. But he was also something we need more of in politics: and honest straight talker who was always willing to find common ground to work on important issues. In a world where most politicians just mouth words other people gave them, mislead the public about their beliefs and plans, and are willing to throw human lives under the bus for their own gain, he stands out as a real person with real values. John McCain never sent anyone to fight a war he didn’t believe in, and he was never afraid to go to war himself, or enter a warzone to see the troops he’d put in harm’s way. A lot of politicians have sent people to die for causes they didn’t believe in.

103

I doubt it. He got about as much attention as Ted Kennedy did, and Obama was president when he died.

If you can’t tell the difference between McCain and 99 other Senators, then I guess it’s no surprise that the past week seems like a puzzle to you. And I say that as someone who was not a big fan, and who did not vote for him in '08. But you don’t have to be a fan to see that he was not just another Senator.

104

Statute calls for the flag to be flown at half-staff upon the death of any member of Congress, which includes Senators. Only two days is actually required, but I don’t think it’s unusual for it to be longer, especially for a well-known senator like McCain.

105

That’s a bar that about half of the pantheon of Lovecraftian Old Ones and Elder Gods could clear. Mitch McConnell is a celestially awful personoid of vaguely human appearance.

Stranger

106

…So threatening to block any and all liberal supreme court nominees under a Clinton presidency was his “conviction”? Voting for Betsy DeVos was his “conviction”? Supporting most of Trump’s appointees and bills was his “conviction”? Call me crazy, but I don’t feel like this is an improvement.

I’m not sure how you quantify McCain as someone who acts “based on his convictions”. When it comes to basing things on their convictions, being honest, being bipartisan… How do you qualify those things for McCain? His Politifact file is pretty thick, and it’s not exactly a clean slate, with about 42% of all statements qualifying as “mostly false” or worse. McCain, throughout his career, voted on party-line votes 87% of the time, only 4% lower than the party average across that same timeframe - hardly a huge bipartisan maverick. You bring up a few examples of his “convictions”, which is nice, but I find it hard to believe that that’s impossible to come up with for the average republican - let alone the average politician.

The fact is, McCain really isn’t that different from the average republican senator. And the average republican senator is fucking scum who sooner deserves a one-way ticket to Syria than deserves to be making laws for the most powerful nation on earth. As said before:

Even if McCain was the best republican in the senate (he’s not; that’s Susan Collins, for those keeping track), he still would be worse than the worst democrat currently serving (AFAICT Joe Manchin) - There was never any question whether or not Joe Manchin would vote to repeal Obamacare. Like any other long-serving republican civil servant who hasn’t spoken out against Trump, his legacy is irrevocably tarred by kowtowing to Trump and refusing to have a goddamn spine.

Where was his alleged fucking “conviction” and “honesty” and “maverick nature” when a lying, corrupt, draft-dodging shitheel who insulted McCain’s war record took over his party? McCain criticized Trump, but at the end of the day, he stood by and let Trump have his way. He sat by and did nothing. Oh, he voted down the Obamacare repeal. Good for him. So did every single fucking democratic senator. And it shouldn’t have been a shock that he voted it down, because the only thing required to realize that repealing Obamacare like that was a bad idea was a pair of functional neurons! This was a bill that the vast majority of Americans hated, and which would have stripped health care from tens of millions for no good reason. It was objectively terrible legislature - every bullshit criticism thrown at Obamacare actually did apply to this legislative abortion, which was literally being edited by hand mere hours before the vote. The fact that his vote was surprising gives us a hint as to just how fucking low our standards are!

And our standards are painfully low if “only voted party line under Trump 80-something-% of the time” counts as a win.

So yeah. Fuck John McCain and the horse he rode in on. No politician willing to be part of the republican party past November 30th, 2016, is worth any praise whatsoever. No, not even the cowardly fucks who decided, instead of doing the decent thing and pushing back against Trump, to just quietly leave. They know Trump is wrong, they’re in a position to make a stand, and they’re refusing. Fuck 'em.

107

And let’s make this clear - Bob Corker, Ben Sasse, and John McCain is more than the senate margin. These three outspoken critics of Trump could have shown some real spine in the face of a president they spoke out against. They could have flipped the senate by caucusing with the dems, sending a clear message that they were not endorsing Trump or his agenda. It would have been political suicide, but none of those three were going to be up for re-election anyways, given that Sasse and Corker are retiring and McCain was dying (if there is a more convenient time to make a brave political stand than “I am literally dying of brain cancer” I don’t know what is)

They didn’t. Instead, they decided to talk a big game, then vote with Trump 80+% of the time and quietly slink away or die. And Sasse had the fucking gall to title his book “conscience of a conservative”. :rolleyes: As it turns out, being the SS unit member who says “There there, it’ll be alright, you’ll make it” to the folks in Dachau and occasionally slips them an extra portion of gruel doesn’t make you a good person. It makes you a fucking shit person who happens to be less shit than the absolute worst possible people.

108

I thought John McCain was unsuited to be President of the U.S. His positions were opposite to mine on most issues. He seemed ignorant on many issues, including some where he was supposed to be expert. The choice of Palin for V.P. was berserk beyond reason.

OTOH, he was a genuine hero who loved his country and tried to vote his conscience with integrity. He was probably innocent in the “Keating Five” affair. Yes, he’d accepted very expensive gifts from Keating, but if accepting gifts or money were improper most of Congress would be gone. He broke contact with Keating as soon as he was informed Keating was the target of prosecutors; instead of speaking of “the Keating Four,” McCain was bundled up as a Fifth so there’d be a Republican in the group.

But was he a “Lion of the Senate”? And if McCain weren’t a “Lion”, who would be? Edward Kennedy certainly but the fact is I didn’t like Ted much personally even if he voted my way much more often than McCain.

Who else could be a “Lion”? Chuck Schumer? Don’t make me laugh. Orrin Hatch? Don’t make me puke. Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders? Even fans will admit they’ve done little to forge consensus. Help me out here … maybe Patrick Leahy? :confused:

TL;DR: Frankly, John McCain wasn’t much, compared with great historic Senators. But he was the closest to a “Lion” that the 115th U.S. Senate had. He will be missed.

109

Yeah; I also agree with most of what adaher said.

As for BPC, with whom I normally or at least often agree: all I can say is that you’re doing exactly what little Mr. Vladimir Putin hopes all Americans will do: depict their political opponents as “scum” and “evil” and and furiously reject all dialog and bi-partisanship on the grounds that purity such as your own cannot be compromised by contact with the filth that is the other side.

I can sympathize with the impulse to demonize the other side, but nonetheless it should be resisted. It’s dumb.
(And, yes, Flake and Corker and McCain should have voted with the Democrats. And, yes, this November it’s indefensible to ‘send a message’ or ‘support third parties’ or to do anything other than to vote for Congressional Democrats: there’s a very specific job that has to be done, and now is not the time for any of that other shit.

(I just can’t get behind the demonizing stuff, though. It is worthwhile to note the ways McCain differed from other Republicans; ‘they’re all evil’ is not a useful or beneficial position to take.)

110

There’s been an uncommon international suggestion to recognize a US Senator. NATO recently moved into it’s brand new billion Euro headquarters in Brussels. UK Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat was the first to suggest naming it after him.

He’s since been joined by three former Secretary Generals of NATO. The full text of their letter to the current Secretary General:

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the recommendation. The subtle middle finger to a President who’s skeptical of “the multilateral international order” and didn’t like McCain is also kind of funny.

111

Don’t question your leaders or you are falling into Putin’s hand!

Sorry, maybe it’s my Russian brainwashing talking, but anyone who calling for Bipartisanship after the actions of the Republican Party after the last ten years is delusional. Some beliefs are evil and should be opposed by any means necessary. There are no good Republicans anymore and McCain was never good. I’m not going to continue because I don’t want to derail this thread.

112

More chelonian, I’d say, but I’m not arguing.

Maybe it’s my imagination, but to me most of those calls, faint and sad though they are, seem to be directed at Republicans. It does get said by those who think it means the Dems should line up and do whatever Fox wants them to, though.

If you mean there are none who will vote against their party, no matter on how anti-American a measure, no matter that they’re allowed to do some ass-covering posturing ahead of time, then you may be right. I can’t name an example either. McCain did that shit too, btw.

113

Hmmm.

How many Senators are there from the Democratic Party who will regularly vote against their party? Who, when the Party is being too liberal (or too whatever), stand on principle and say, “no, I’m going with the other guys here”?

114

Regularly? You mean Ever?

115

AFAICT, Democratic Congresspeople are much more heterogeneous than their Republican counterparts. This is true even after the split of the GOP between the hypocritic and greedy puppets of the Kochs who get their news from Fox; and the Teaparty/Evangelical alliance who get their news from Breitbart and YouTube channels like Alex Jones.

This is why I was startled by the following post:

:confused: Do you have a relevant example in mind? Are you complaining that when Obamacare needed 60 votes to pass the Senate and all 40 R’s voted No, not one single D joined the R’s — is that’s what you’re on about? Do you need more examples like that?

I shall assume DSYoungEsq’s post was some sort of typo, that he meant to refer to the Republicans. Otherwise I’d have to assume he’s not entirely well informed.

116

We absolutely need bipartisanship; which is to say sane discussions between two political parties on how best to govern the country. In order to have that, we need to have two sane parties who both have ideas on how to govern. The sooner we can make that happen, the sooner we can get bipartisanship.

117

The thesis presented is that Republicans do not vote against their party in support of principles (thus, there are “no good Republicans anymore.”).

If this precludes Republicans from being “good”, then either there are no good Democrats anymore, or there are Democrats who do, indeed, vote against their party in support of principles. So my question was: how many such Democrats, if any, exist?

Funny, no one’s actually, you know, just answered the question.

118

No, McCain wasn’t a lion, because he didn’t have enough legislation to his name. McCain Feingold, his signature accomplishment, was neutered by Citizens United. And one piece of large legislation doesn’t make you a lion. Maybe an ocelot.

Pelosi is a lion, though I prefer the term sausage maker. Chris Dodd had a string of legislative accomplishments to his name. McCain was an ordinary politician.

119

What if you think the Republican party platform is bad the Democratic party platform is good? Or, that the Republicans’ motivation is bad and the Democrats’ motivation is good. Do you think there are no posters here who are of that opinion? I think there are quite a few.