# Resolved: John McCain does not have the integrity to be President **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149 "2008-09-11T20:18:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/141 "2008-09-14T01:34:29Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Of course, the problem there is that if U.S. casualties continue, he _also_ wants a long-term presence. Unless he’s defined what “winning” means and I missed it. Really and truly, it’s not that I’m trying to argue this point with you; it’s that I don’t understand the defense. And I’d really, really like to. > > Here’s what I understand; the question of focus is: _When does the U.S. pull out of Iraq?_ By McCain’s words, the U.S. will leave Iraq (i.e., end the war) when we’ve “won”. If the U.S. is suffering casualties, we haven’t won yet. But if the U.S. is **not** suffering casualties, then he’s still OK with keeping troops in Iraq. I do not see how either of these positions allow for troop withdrawal; thus, there is no end to the war. > > Does your defense rest simply on the use of the word “wants”? I’m not following you at all, Diogenes. He wants the troops to remain committed to the war effort in Iraq until conditions on the ground make clear that the effort was successful. At that point, there is nothing compelling us to keep troops in Iraq relative to that original commitment. We could take 'em all home, send 'em somewhere else, whatever. OTOH, should we choose to remain in Iraq for a million years beyond that–so long as it is a safe and stable environment for our troops and it provides a strategic benefit for the U.S.–then he is A-OK with hanging around. They’re two different notions. Really, I don’t see how it’s confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/142 "2008-09-14T01:37:19Z")
> [@vison](#): > > I think because Mr. Obama is not saying these things about Mrs. Palin. Is he responsible for what the nutbars sending “you-have-to-know-this” emails have to say? But I’m not referring to nutbar emails. I’m referring to columnists and people with a national audience. Why don’t we expect Obama to express his outrage over these lies and distortions if we (some in this thread, anyway) have the same expectation for McCain? Again, I don’t expect this, nor am I particularly “outraged.” Just pointing out the inconsistency. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/143 "2008-09-14T02:05:38Z")
What columnists? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/144 "2008-09-14T02:19:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What columnists? Just as an example, Dowd in the Times today, who offered a contemptuous comment advancing the now-accepted belief that Palin had described the Iraq war as a mission from God. On the 9th, she also advanced the book-banning assertion. I was in Chicago yesterday and read a columnist who offhandedly commented how Palin urged the librarian to ban books. Can’t remember her name. Are you curious, or does this seem overstated to you? I seem to be running into such assertions regularly. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/145 "2008-09-14T02:38:31Z")
The book banning thing is true. She tried to fire a librarian for saying she wouldn’t cooperate with censoring books. She also did say that her pipeline scheme is God’s plan. Those are not smears. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/146 "2008-09-14T02:44:41Z")
In [Dowd’s column](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) today, she quoted Palin accurately: > [@](#): > > She tried to finesse her previous church comments about Iraq, asking worshipers to pray “that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.” Earnestly repeating after her tutors, she said she had meant to echo Abraham Lincoln, that in war we must pray that we are on God’s side rather than that he is on ours. But her original comments sounded more W. than Abe — taking your policy and ideology and giving it the hallowed mantle of a mission from God. She then gives an opinion that the quote sounded like Bush, but she did not truncate it. I don’t see anything unfair here. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/147 "2008-09-14T02:54:46Z")
When she fired the librarian, it was months after the conversation (that Palin described as rhetorical) and the censorship issue was not mentioned. The librarian was one of many Palin fired–she was apparently pretty ruthless in her “purges.” The pipeline comments I heard on Youtube, and they seemed pretty off-the-cuff. I didn’t think much of them–wasn’t even sure I understood her. But that doesn’t change the fact that I was referring to the comments she made about Iraq, the ones that were transformed countless times into some form of, “Palin thinks the war in Iraq is a mission from God.” I read Dowd the same way. “Taking your policy and ideology and giving it the hallowed mantle of a mission from God” is a distortion of what Palin actually said, which was, “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” Those are not the words of someone asserting that Iraq was divinely ordained, or that Jesus told Bush to invade Iraq, or any other implication that is being regularly made these days. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/148 "2008-09-14T03:42:11Z")
But we now know the book Ms. Palin asked to ban. “Daddy’s Roommate” was the title. > **[Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes (Published 2008)](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin)** > > Gov. Sarah Palin’s visceral style and tendency to attack critics contrast with her public image, her record shows. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/149 "2008-09-14T03:48:31Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > …and that that plan is God’s plan." Those are not the words of someone asserting that Iraq was divinely ordained, or that Jesus told Bush to invade Iraq, or any other implication that is being regularly made these days. Not following the subtlety, here. How is it that “from God” doesn’t mean “from God”? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/150 "2008-09-14T09:36:20Z")
Let’s also not forget Obama’s continued repeating that McCain wants “100 years of war” in Iraq, which was essentially a lie as well. Or Obama constantly talking about “McCain-Bush”, trying to tie McCain to Bush’s administration despite McCain disagreeing with Bush on numerous issues. Politics is a rough game. Campaigns always go at each other as hard as they can, skirting the line between dishonesty and exaggeration. That’s just the way the game is played. Obama’s doing it, McCain’s doing it, Bush did it. This doesn’t make any of them horrible, despicable people. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/151 "2008-09-14T11:07:12Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > But we now know the book Ms. Palin asked to ban. “Daddy’s Roommate” was the title. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?\_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin) No, it does not say what you flatly indicate it does, so your post–not to pick on you, but here you are with a nice example–is yet another instance of the kind of misinformation referred to earlier in the thread. Palin did not ask someone to ban this book, not according to your cite. This cite still doesn’t contradict any prior report–that Palin did not ban any books, nor did she ask anyone to ban a book, nor did she urge someone to ban a book. It says that as a city councilwoman, she felt that book didn’t belong on the library shelves–at least as far as the recollection of two people. I’m sure the librarian also felt there are books that don’t belong on the library shelves, and I have no doubt that the two women don’t agree on where this particular boundary of “offensiveness” lies, though they’d both agree one exists. But none of that changes the fact that Palin did not ban any books, nor did she ask anyone to ban a book, nor did she urge someone to ban a book, not based on the current facts we’re aware of. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/152 "2008-09-14T11:16:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not following the subtlety, here. How is it that “from God” doesn’t mean “from God”? I’m reading her comments to say that we should pray that we’re following God’s plan. A plea for wisdom, perhaps is a way of representing it. But I do not read it as some form of, “God’s mission is for the U.S to be in Iraq, I know it for certain.” Or “Jesus told me we’re on the right track in Iraq.” That’s how it’s being spun–she’s one of those crazy evangelicals. I think her actual comments were pretty innocuous–the sort of short, sweet sentiment we hear from pols on both sides of the aisle. And yet it has become a go-to reference point, evidence for her religious fundamentalism, her fanatical religious zealotry. Really, do you read her actual words that way? Why all the national play? ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/153 "2008-09-14T14:46:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not following the subtlety, here. How is it that “from God” doesn’t mean “from God”? Sorry, but there is a big difference (if you happen to believe in God, which I don’t) in _stating_ that you’re following a plan from God, and _hoping_ that you’re following a plan from God. The film clip I saw was the latter. As for the books issue, I’ve only seen the one person’s claims, and they said that she asked the librarian about banning books, which Palin later dismissed as a “loyalty test.” The bizarreness of this description alone lends some substance to the claim. As far as the one hundred years in Iraq, I think the point may be that John McCain sincerely does not recognize that this is never going to be a pacifed nation like Germany or Korea (“never” being “not in the foreseeable future”), whereas Obama does. John McCain is willing to stay there until it is, although he is unwilling to define measurable terms of his envisioned victory. Obama recognizes that there is no such thing as victory possible here and we’d better cut our losses and get the hell out while the Iraqis themselves have a remote chance of saving things from splitting wide open. GWB, through harsh reality as president, has finally had to have the reality driven home to him, but John McCain has not, and still can cling to his idealistic view. If elected, I wonder how many years and how many lives it will take him. I also view with deep fear what these same views will take us into in Iran. The problem is, we can easily beat these countries. We can squash them flat, by nuking them. But that’s obviously not a way we want to go, and I’m not at all certain we can win any other way, not without making the kinds of sacrifices that Americans are not in the least ready to make. Most Americans today aren’t against the war in Iraq because of principal. They probably have figured out by now that it was morally wrong - that there never were any WMD and that Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11. But they’re against it because it’s costing lives and money, especially the latter unless they have personal connections with the latter. If you’d have asked me six years ago why people would turn against the war eventually, I’d have told you this, because I saw it with Viet Nam. People don’t vote enlightened self-interest, and they certainly don’t vote morality. They vote what they perceive (often incorrectly, as it turns out) to be direct self-interest. Fortunately for John McCain, they don’t seem to realize that there’s a very real possibility that by the end of a first term we will be involved in not only a third, but even fourth war, both of them bigger than the first two, both entailing huge sacrifice on the part of the American people. First, of course, Iran - bigger than Iraq, and far more unified - they won’t waste much of their time and enery fighting one another. But the real peach of the bunch is Russia. If we put Georgia and Ukraine on the fast track to NATO membership, and Russia then decides it’s really not willing to put up with it, what then? Well, to put it at its simplest, WWIII. I trust Obama to fully exhaust diplomacy in each situation before turning to military options. Can you say the same of McCain? I’m not saying he’s not a good guy. I’m saying he’s a guy who sees military solutions to problems - who despite his horrible experiences still views the military in a very romantic light, guts and glory. It’s paradoxical. We have two men, one 72 years old and one 47 years old. If all you knew was their ages and their personalities, you would think that Obama was the 72 year old and McCain was the 47 year old. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/154 "2008-09-14T14:53:02Z")
> [@](#): > > But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase, this book does not belong in our library. I don’t need to read it. It doesn’t belong there. I’m your boss. Technically, there is no mention of ‘I order you to remove this book, Daddy’s Roommate from the shelves.’ but yeah, I’m pretty sure that counts. “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Stratocaster?” Oh, Stratocaster is dead. Well, I didn’t _order_ him killed. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/155 "2008-09-14T15:26:36Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Ms. Chase, this book does not belong in our library. I don’t need to read it. It doesn’t belong there. I’m your boss. > > Technically, there is no mention of ‘I order you to remove this book, Daddy’s Roommate from the shelves.’ but yeah, I’m pretty sure that counts. > > “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Stratocaster?” Oh, Stratocaster is dead. Well, I didn’t _order_ him killed. You’re reaching. Ms. Chase wasn’t the librarian, and the conversation you referenced took place when Palin was a councilwoman. The librarian said there was never any specific book mentioned or specific direction that Palin wanted something banned, which is consistent at least with Palin’s contention that she was trying to understand the process, not get something banned. Your statement is still a distortion of what actually occurred. “But we now know the book Ms. Palin asked to ban. ‘Daddy’s Roommate’ was the title,” is a misrepresentation of what your cite actually said. Sorry, but it is, and here in the very thread where it makes my point for me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/156 "2008-09-14T15:48:46Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > …consistent at least with Palin’s contention that she was trying to understand the process… What “process”? There was no such “process” to understand, her librarian told her in flat and certain terms that she was not in the business of banning books, being a librarian, and all. Are we to believe that Ms Palin had to call three times in order to get that through her head? If you don’t do it, you don’t do it, there are no specifics to offer, there is no procedure for _not_ doing something. You just don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/157 "2008-09-14T15:50:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What “process”? There was no such “process” to understand, her librarian told her in flat and certain terms that she was not in the business of banning books, being a librarian, and all. Are we to believe that Ms Palin had to call three times in order to get that through her head? If you don’t do it, you don’t do it, there are no specifics to offer, there is no procedure for _not_ doing something. You just don’t. And she didn’t. Nicely settled. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/158 "2008-09-14T15:53:26Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > And she didn’t. Nicely settled. This kind of disingenuous nonsense makes it very hard to have a civil debate. I really find it loathsome. If you have to twist words and pretend to misunderstand, you’re not in a very good debate position. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/159 "2008-09-14T16:10:35Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I’m not following you at all, Diogenes. He wants the troops to remain committed to the war effort in Iraq until conditions on the ground make clear that the effort was successful. At that point, there is nothing compelling us to keep troops in Iraq relative to that original commitment. We could take 'em all home, send 'em somewhere else, whatever. > > OTOH, should we choose to remain in Iraq for a million years beyond that–so long as it is a safe and stable environment for our troops and it provides a strategic benefit for the U.S.–then he is A-OK with hanging around. They’re two different notions. Really, I don’t see how it’s confusing. First, I’m not **Diogenes**. I assume that was just a mistake. Second, I should make it clear that I think the Obama campaign is mischaracterizing McCain on this. Third, Hi Opal! With that out of the way, this page from [Columbia Journalism Review](http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_iraq_and_100_years.php?page=all) has the quote in full (and, coincidentally, is railing at Obama’s inaccuracy). Again, I would point out the context of the quote; after a 5-minute back and forth, McCain interrupts a question that begins “_President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…_”. Obviously, the questioner’s intent is to get an answer as to what the conditions are under which U.S. troops can/will be brought home (i.e., end the war). Which is exactly my question and what I seek to understand. In short, what **are** the “_conditions on the ground_” that indicate success (according to McCain)? If none are specified, then there is no functional difference among “next year”, “100 years”, and “never” – until such are established, it’s completely open-ended. In McCain’s “100 years” quote, he also says: > [@John McCain](#): > > I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day. Does he expect the middle east to suddenly become non-volatile? Al Qaeda (or other terrorist organizations) to miraculously disappear from the face of the earth? Again, the point is: when would he consider the war **over**? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/160 "2008-09-14T16:13:52Z")
So Mayor Palin calls the Fire Chief… “Chief, what’s the approved procedure for burning a witch?” “Whaaaaaa? There’s no such procedure, we don’t do that!” “Yes, of course, but what is the correct procedure for not doing it?” “Oh, well, then, first you must determine if she floats. or if she is in fact made of wood…” “A bit slower, please, I’m taking notes…” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149.md?page=9)