This is the guy who is basically running on his “foreign policy experience”, right?
-Joe
An intelligent, competent person is made more competent by choosing and listening to good advisers. An incompetent, stupid/senile person won’t; they either won’t listen, won’t understand, won’t implement the advice well, or will surround themselves with yes men and/or puppetmasters ( “handlers”, as said ). It’s the difference between Bob the Delta Force guy and Jimmy the klutz saying that they can defend themselves with a gun; personal competence is required to make good use of a weapon, or of advisers.
Sorry. That incident was much more widely known; I thought you needed only the more recent one. Here’s the Christianity thing. He was speaking to an evangelical interviewer from BeliefNet.
Dan Gilgoff: Has the candidates’ personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race?
John McCain: Questions about that are very legitimate… And it’s also appropriate for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that’s sort of a private matter between me and my Creator… But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, ‘Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?’"That flies in the face of the sentiment expressed in the Constitution by our Founders in Article VI, Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.I believe that his call to judge candidates by their religion and reject any who aren’t Jewish or Christian, and to do so while extolling the “principled tradition” of the United States, reveals either an egregious ignorance of the Constitution’s spirit or else a nefariously suspect malinterpretation of how that great document should be applied. When this is weighed along with his scathing indictment of the Supreme Court for defending the right to seek relief from unlawful detention, it should scare conservatives — renowned for their adoration of the Constitution and Bill of Rights — above all.
Why would John McCain want to apply a test to a candidate that our Founders disdained for Congress and for themselves?
McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of a his class an Annapolis. The standard story is that he was smart enough to do better, but he was undisciplined and didn’t apply himself. If he wasn’t interested in a subject, he’d blow it off.
I don’t think he’s senile or stupid. I think he’s incurious and lazy. He can rev himself up for a topic that he’s interested in, but in general he lets his staff take care of the details while he focuses on the big picture.
I think McCain’s brand of “big picture – ignore the details” thinking is very bad right now. The world is changing rapidly. The old big picture doesn’t apply any more. We need someone who can look at the little details and put them together into a NEW big picture that more accurately reflects modern reality.
Everyone’s got principles. They’re just not always good principles. For example, Bush apparently has the principle “every economic problem can be solved by cutting taxes for the rich”. And he has consistently followed this principle.
Do I need to point out that nobody but you has called anyone “stoopid” or said they smell bad? Isn’t it possible for people to disagree over an issue without a personal insult being made? It’s you who seem to lack respect for the common people.
2-3 weeks? I could bear it very well if they agreed on no campaigning until after the conventions.
I didn’t think he confused guns with the constitution, i think he was trying to emphasize that clinging to guns is simply defending a constitutional right. He was trying to make Obamas comment sound worse, that is all.
With all due respect, I don’t believe it’s correct to call him “confused” on this issue. He has a view that you disagree with.
The Founders forbid the codification of a religious test into law; they did not suggest that no one could ever suggest to vioters that the best path for the country was to choose a candidate of a particular religion. Indeed, stifling that speech would run afoul of another part of the Constitution.
If McCain had suggested that it was forbidden to select anyone but an adherent of the “Judeo-Christian” heritage, you’d be right to call him confused. But he’s suggesting the best choice for a leader, as he’s entitled to you. You may sharply disagree with the wisdom of his idea; it doesn’t make either one of you confused.
No, his advisors are not there to fill him in on the basics. They should be there to provide indepth insight and expertise. No one should be a party’s nominee if she or he doesn’t know the fundamentals of world events. I grew up thinking that the President had to be the smartest man in the world.
I am an Obama supporter. But I think that McCain’s refusal to be released as a POW until other men who had been there longer were also released, has proven that he is a man who has courage. He does not deserve to be called “gutless.” He has made some lousy choices since then, but courage was not an issue.
As I said, I prefered to give him the benefit of the doubt between confused and evil. If you wish to defend judging a person’s fitness to serve his country on the basis of his religion, feel free.
I don’t understand why you would ask that. Did you read the back-and-forth between Diogenes the Cynic and me?
(I consider myself a member of the common people. I hold no college degree, average intellect. Middle class pay scale, living pay check to pay check.)
I was responding to Diogenes’ assertion that elected representitives should ignore the will of their constituents, if they feel that their constituents are ignorant. He used the terms “ignorant clamoring” and “mob rule”, both of which paint the constituents’ desires in a negative light by ignoring or removing the possibility that those desires have any validity. That is why it sounded elitist to me. (And the “dialog” between quote marks in post #38 was only for dramatic/comedic effect.)
I expect my representitives to represent me (or at least, the the group of voters I belong to). We are not elevating folks to peerage here.
How can you say my vote counts (on issues, not people), or my voiced opinion matters (in letter/phone feedback) if it is ignored? (I don’t mind being legitimately outvoted. Happens a lot with bond issues out here. 
)
I feel that Diogenes the Cynic is being a little selective here. Imagine that if McCain believes strongly that same sex marriage should be banned, but his constituents (through email/letter/phone campaign) have indicated that they were in favor of SSM. Should McCain (who believes he is right, and his voters ignorant) ignore their desires and vote in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to restrict marriage to one man and one woman? I would imagine (just an assumption on my part, I know) the DtC among many others (myself included) would be very upset about his handling of his office in this way.
The problem with McCain is we never know when he’s pandering, or when he’s voting for what he believes in. Or hadn’t you noticed how he has shamelessly flip-flopped on so many issues - even torture! - which I find astonishing for a 5-year POW.
You’re not exactly narrowing the field a lot there.
I spotted that pretty easily. Anyone who says that the “elites” are making fun of the common people behind their backs obviously doesn’t have himself pegged as one of those elites.
OK. I have some faith in the regular joe.
I am cynical (but not automatically negative) about politicians.
That’s great. I have faith in regular joes and common people as well. But I also have faith in people who aren’t like me. I have faith that liberals and conservatives aren’t trying to hurt me or hurt America. I think they may be mistaken in their beliefs but they honestly believe that what they are doing is right. And when I think how somebody can honestly believe in something even if it’s wrong, I realize that maybe I’m wrong about some of the things I believe in. So I try to understand the beliefs of others and consider the possibility that they may be smarter than me and maybe they’re right and I’m wrong.
Okellydokelly, that sounds good to me, but I am confused.
Are you saying all that is incompatible with my position that an elected politican should represent the will of his constituents?
Do you support DtC’s belief that a politician should ignore that will, and do “what he knows best”, every time?
While I’ll be the first to admit my limitations, I still expect to have my “one man, one vote” opinion afforded to me, and have it actually counted.
Or are you hung up on my use of the word “elitist”?
Let’s use another hypothetical:
Junk food is somewhat unhealthy. It can lead to obesity, high blood pressure, for instance.
A well meaning politician may seek to ban junk food (by fiat or taxes, not by popular vote), to protect me form my own lack of self control in nutritional intake.
From my point of view, this form of nanny-ism smacks of elitism. Instead of letting me live my own life and make my own choices, the choices are taken away from me, and made by someone else who feels that I cannot be trusted on my own. This politician feels that their own judgement should trump mine. That is what makes it elitist.
In that example, I agree with you. The government shouldn’t be regulating whether or not people eat junk food.
But suppose it’s some issue like pesticide use. If some government regulator bans some pesticide because he thinks it’s unsafe maybe I disagree with him. Maybe a hundred other people agree with me and think the pesiticde should be allowed.
Now if the regulator says “Listen, people, I understand you all disagree with me. But I have degrees in chemistry and medicine. I’ve spent twenty years working on pesticide regulation. I conducted all the tests and read all the results. I’m not being elitist but I really do know more about this issue than any of you do. I’m right and all of you are wrong.”
What’s the point in hiring somebody to do a job because you think he’s the best qualified to do that job if all you’re going to do afterwards is argue with him and try to tell him how to do his job? If you voted for a politician to represent you it should mean that you thought he had the best judgement for how to run things. So why second guess him when he uses that judgement?
I would trust the relavent government agency unless or until a decent opposing argument gets made publicly. Interesting question though, thanks.
I am not sure how the various State and Federal agencies get products banned.
Typically, it seems that the public at large is informed after the fact (banning), and no ballot measure is held. Also, I think that safety concerns, if time critical, can excuse an incorrect government response. (Better to ban, then repeal and ask forgiveness later, if needed, for legitimate safety reasons.)
However, this reminds me of the seat belt law debates: Individualists don’t want the government intruding. Others think that the government should prevent people from unecessarily engaging in dangerous behavior. Others think that the government’s duty should be to the greater whole (enforcing safety feature into the manufacture and use of cars, and “awareness campaigns”, in this case), not the individual.
If your State government put the seat belt law up to a popular vote (and let’s stipulate that the public wants the law repealed), do you think the State Legislature should give it’s citizens “the finger”?
(Personally, I am mostly neutral about the law. Seat belts seem like a reasonable safety feature, and I don’t feel that it is an undue hardship on me by being required to use them.)
His job is to represent me. I am not electing a new daddy or mommy.
I don’t second guess him or her on all things.
But the few things that I do choose to get involved with, at least enough to make my voice heard (either through voting for ballot iniatives, or through some form of letter or telephone campaign), I expect him to represent my wishes (assuming my voice is indeed part of the majority of my district).
If I am in the minority, I either “suck it up”, or whine louder. ( 
)
I don’t understand how you can consider it a democracy when a majority of voters wishes can overridden by the politician.
Another (weak?) example:
Washington gives tax breaks to Big Oil. Presumadely, these tax breaks are to offset the costs of speculative drilling, R&D, and other energy related investing.
By your reasoning, shouldn’t we give Congress “the benefit of the doubt”? (After all, the politicians may hold more info on the topic of the economy and energy than most of us do.) Why all the moaning and groaning about lobbyists and Big Buisness controlling government?
“Well, that’s corruption!” you might say. How do we know? Well, we don’t know. But we suspect, especially if the politicians didn’t follow the wishes of the voters in the first place.