# 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:** 9
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/161 "2008-09-14T16:15:14Z")
The librarian did not say that no books were mentioned. She refused to say what books, if any, were mentioned. There is a slight difference. I believe it’s called being a professional, you understand. ---
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/162 "2008-09-14T17:17:08Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > 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. Loathsome, eh? You’re one of those sensitive souls I mentioned earlier who gets the vapours over such matters I guess. I have no idea what point you’re making here. Really. My point was, and is, that Palin did not ban any books or urge anyone to ban any books or identify a book to be banned, so to assert that she did, would be false. Like some of the assertions in this thread, if you’re looking for an example. What occurs, then, which is also predictable, is that people start dancing around pointing out how awful her behavior was anyway; how she must have really wanted to ban books, which is just as bad; and this is an obvious character flaw; and blah, blah, blah, blah. Which, of course, misses the point, the one relevant to this thread. Which is, that to assert that Palin banned books, or urged someone to, or asked for a specific book to be banned, would be false. The lack of concern you see expressed over such assertions shows, I believe, the partisan nature of the concern over integrity and other such staples of campaign “outrage.” It’s “loathsome” only when the other guy does it, apparently. ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/163 "2008-09-14T17:20:35Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The librarian did not say that no books were mentioned. She refused to say what books, if any, were mentioned. There is a slight difference. I believe it’s called being a professional, you understand. No, you continue to be a bit off the [mark](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5766173&page=1): > [@](#): > > The librarian at the center of a 1996 controversy with then-Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin says she can’t recall any effort by Palin to ban specific books from the town library. > > The VP candidate butted heads with a librarian while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.In her first public statement since Palin was named the GOP vice-presidential candidate, Mary Ellen Baker said today, “I simply do not recall a conversation with specific titles,” Baker told [ABCNews.com](http://ABCNews.com). The reporter in the cite remembers otherwise. Still no titles, still no books banned. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/164 "2008-09-14T17:32:35Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > 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! Oops! Sorry. Yes, we’re in agreement on that, obviously. > [@](#): > > 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. That’s a different argument, if I understand you. But if you suggest that McCain is not specific enough regarding what will constitute success in the war in Iraq, I’m not offering the counter argument. I am saying that he did say that given a successfully completed war (however badly you think he has defined this) he’d support a long-term presence in this now stable environment, where U.S. casualties are no longer a material concern. Again, you can say, “But how the hell do you get to that point? You’re not being clear, Senator!” Or, “But I don’t believe such a stable environment is possible in that area.” But that won’t change the fact that McCain believes otherwise and said he’d support a long-term, post-war presence only under such conditions. You think he’s misguided or unclear? Fine. That does not translate into “McCain said he’s fine with another 100 years of war in Iraq,” which is what Obama asserted. That’s my point. ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/165 "2008-09-14T18:30:34Z")
Oh, I daresay we all might! Given a unanimous resolution in the Iraqi Parliament heaping praise upon George Bush and begging for our continued presence, I may very well be persuaded. Was it Richard Perle who said he expected a statue to Bush to be erected in downtown Baghdad? How’s that coming, you think? Perhaps zoning regulations prohibit, yes, that must be it… You know, someday soon there will be elections in Iraq, much like our own, in some respects. And a candidate will run on his record as a war hero, how he stood up to torture by the Americans… Similar thing happened in France, after WWII was over and the Germans safely away, it turned out that over 95% of French politicians were active members of the Resistance. ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/166 "2008-09-14T18:38:54Z")
elucidator, then I’ll count you among the “not bloody likely” crowd with regard to the long-term presence. But to your credit, you did concede that the “McCain wants another 100 years of war” comments were a mischaracterization as I recall, way back in another thread where I brought it up. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/167 "2008-09-14T18:51:15Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > That’s a different argument, if I understand you. Yes, it is slightly different. As I say, I think the “wants 100 years of war” is a mischaracterization. But it’s not clear to me that it is _contrary_, as you have said. And since you came out so strongly, I was hoping that you might be able to elaborate. > [@](#): > > I am saying that he did say that given a successfully completed war (however badly you think he has defined this) he’d support a long-term presence in this now stable environment, where U.S. casualties are no longer a material concern. And again, there’s the rub: if there are **no** U.S. casualties, he’d support a long-term presence. If there **are** U.S. casualties, he’d also support a long-term presence (because we’d not yet have “won the war”). As I said, I don’t see any functional difference between the two, at least without some definition of “winning”. To say that there is, or to go to the argumentative extreme of saying that one is _contrary_ to the other, is just as much a mischaracterization in my eyes as saying “McCain wants 100 years of war”. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/168 "2008-09-14T19:02:20Z")
> [@blanx](#): > > Also from the View, by way of [yahoo.com](http://yahoo.com) > > McCain stood by two of his campaign commercials — one which said Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarten students and another that suggested Obama had called Palin a pig. Both are misleading and factually inaccurate. > > Obama, as an Illinois state senator, voted in favor of legislation that would teach age appropriate sex education to kindergartners, including information on rejecting advances by sexual predators. And while Obama told a campaign rally this week that electing McCain would be like “putting lipstick on a pig,” he never used the phrase in connection to Palin. > > “Those ads aren’t true. They’re lies,” said “View” co-host Joy Behar. > > “They’re not lies,” McCain said, insisting that Obama “chooses his words very carefully” and should never had made the lipstick remark. > > source link- [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap\_on\_el\_pr/campaign\_republicans;\_ylt=Alyofr8ApO9onwl\_FWNwD2lh24cA](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_republicans;_ylt=Alyofr8ApO9onwl_FWNwD2lh24cA) McCain is lying in this instance. he used the expression himself and it is in common usage. It simply refers to dressing up a bad program with bells and whistles to distract from the idea that it is flawed. It is not about pigs ,It is not about lipstick. It is a metaphor. It is not about Palin . ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/169 "2008-09-14T19:05:40Z")
Sure. But the truth about his views is that they are even _more_ disturbingly batshit than the mischaracterization. If I accuse Hannibal Lecter of being a parking-ticket scofflaw, have I slandered him? Hell, if the Iraqi people wanted us to stay and colonize them like we did to S Korea, we’d be crazy not to. (Synghman Rhee, anyone? Now, there was an avatar of free speech and democracy! You could agree with him as loudly and as often as you liked…) But his vision is a fever-dream of victory and triumph. If he had the power, he would bend every effort to make his dream a reality. This makes him a very dangerous man. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/170 "2008-09-14T19:06:26Z")
Digital Stimulus, I don’t think anyone envisions, expects or would support a never-ending war. McCain has been reluctant to identify a timetable, for the strategic reasons he has noted, but I think you may be overstating his position. Worded differently, if asked at that town hall if he’d support 50 or 100 more years of conditions on the ground in Iraq as they currently existed, he’d likely have said no–and he would have added, I think, that we needn’t consider that scenario either, since we’ll achieve our objectives much, much sooner. You may disagree with that outlook, of course. What do you think? If asked point blank, “Senator McCain, would you support 100 more years of war in Iraq, should it take that long to achieve the stability you target?” what do you suppose he’d answer, if we forced some truth serum on him and he had to tell what was in his heart? I’ll answer first: I think he’d say no, he would not support such a scenario, nor does he expect it. ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/171 "2008-09-14T20:32:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Sure. But the truth about his views is that they are even _more_ disturbingly batshit than the mischaracterization. If I accuse Hannibal Lecter of being a parking-ticket scofflaw, have I slandered him? Well, yes, if he doesn’t drive, for example. But one wouldn’t need to make such an assertion regarding our buddy Hannibal to paint an accurate picture regarding his shortcomings. The fact that people do make the infamous “100 more years” comment suggests the need to diminish a position that would otherwise, at worst, be innocuous, and at best, have some merit. > [@](#): > > Hell, if the Iraqi people wanted us to stay and colonize them like we did to S Korea, we’d be crazy not to. (Synghman Rhee, anyone? Now, there was an avatar of free speech and democracy! You could agree with him as loudly and as often as you liked…) > > But his vision is a fever-dream of victory and triumph. If he had the power, he would bend every effort to make his dream a reality. This makes him a very dangerous man. Not getting why it’s batshit crazy. The surge is working, by Obama’s own admission, despite his prior strong statements to the contrary. We have had a presence in Kuwait for what, 18 years now? Why? Because it serves our interests. Is it a slam dunk for Iraq? No. But it’s not crazy. And however you feel about it’s likelihood, it doesn’t discredit it by saying, “McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq” (which you, personally, have not at all said, just to make clear that I’m keeping up). ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/172 "2008-09-14T22:03:19Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Digital Stimulus, I don’t think anyone envisions, expects or would support a never-ending war. McCain has been reluctant to identify a timetable, for the strategic reasons he has noted, but I think you may be overstating his position. To be honest, I feel that I _can’t_ be overstating his position (limited to “winning the war”), because I don’t know what it is. > [@](#): > > Worded differently, if asked at that town hall if he’d support 50 or 100 more years of conditions on the ground in Iraq as they currently existed, he’d likely have said no–and he would have added, I think, that we needn’t consider that scenario either, since we’ll achieve our objectives much, much sooner. You may disagree with that outlook, of course. For a little more depth, linked to from that CJR site I gave above is [this ABCNews synopsis](http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4556230&page=1). It begins: > [@](#): > > In early January, at a town hall-style campaign event for Sen. John McCain in Derry, N.H., a man in the audience stood to ask the Republican presidential candidate a question about his support for the war in Iraq. > > What followed was an extraordinary discussion that lasted six minutes. McCain predicted that Gen. David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy would eventually make Iraq more secure, allowing economic, social and political progress to take place. I’d like to read a transcript of those six minutes; I did a cursory search, but came up with bupkis. I have to wonder if that man from the audience didn’t put something very close to your question to him (i.e., “given current conditions, how long _do_ you propose to stay in Iraq?”). Yes, you’re correct that his thinking is “we needn’t consider that situation”. But wouldn’t you agree that that’s crap (or, at best, political evasion)? In a violation of “plan for the worst, hope for the best” kinda way? The kind of considering that leads to “Mission Accomplished” banners and such? Again, I think that “_McCain wants 100 years of war_” is a mischaracterization; I’m sure it’s more accurate to say “_McCain wants rainbows and ponies_”. But without knowing what “winning” is, I think that saying “_McCain would **not** support 100 years of war_” is almost as bad a mischaracterization. I note that this could all be cleared up if at any time McCain had provided a defintion of “winning”. > [@](#): > > What do you think? If asked point blank, “Senator McCain, would you support 100 more years of war in Iraq, should it take that long to achieve the stability you target?” what do you suppose he’d answer, if we forced some truth serum on him and he had to tell what was in his heart? I’ll answer first: I think he’d say no, he would not support such a scenario, nor does he expect it. I don’t know; he’s made it a campaign plank that we will not leave Iraq until the war is “won”, hasn’t he? I cannot believe that _anyone_ would support that, but, going by his own words, he has and does. Naturally, that’s politics-speak; I’d really like something more substantive. Although I think you’re correct that he doesn’t expect it to take that long. If asked the question as you propose, with the word “support” rather than “be fine with” or “want”, it really isn’t clear to me how he’d answer. As I brought up earlier, he’s also said that he’s fine with having U.S. troops (“maintaining a presence”) in a “very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” Due to political expediency (and sans truth serum), he’d have to say “no”. What’s in his heart? It may be obvious that he doesn’t “want” war, but would he “support” it? I don’t know…I think there’s a decent chance he would. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/173 "2008-09-15T00:00:55Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Of course, if you set the bar for presidency-worthiness at “will abandon and work against his poilitical party if he disagrees with their direction” then with the USA’s two-party system you have reduced the set of electable presidency-worthy canidates to “politicians who never have to face the above situation.” Let’s go with this criterium. McCain voted Republican party line 90% of the time (the famous voted with Bush quote) Obama voted Democratic party line 96% of the time ---
**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 15, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/174 "2008-09-15T01:03:43Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Let’s go with this criterium. McCain voted Republican party line 90% of the time (the famous voted with Bush quote) > Obama voted Democratic party line 96% of the time Although, of course, 80% of the populace thinks the country is on the “wrong track”. That track, of course, being dictated by the Republicans for the last 8 years. Doesn’t that indicate that Obama is more “president-worthy” than McCain in the eyes of a substantial majority of the populace? Do I get a cookie for perpetuating this inanity? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/175 "2008-09-15T16:36:06Z")
I think we have sufficiently beaten the Palin book banning and McCain 100 years of war/occupation to death in several other topics, neither of which goes to McCain’s honor and integrity, so getting back on track here. . . New Obama ad: [Honor](http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5q24). ---
**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 15, 2008, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/176 "2008-09-15T19:03:43Z")
Well, there you go, if the Washington Post says so, that’s good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/177 "2008-09-15T19:07:29Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Although, of course, 80% of the populace thinks the country is on the “wrong track”. That track, of course, being dictated by the Republicans for the last 8 years. Doesn’t that indicate that Obama is more “president-worthy” than McCain in the eyes of a substantial majority of the populace? We’ll find out in 54 days. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/178 "2008-09-15T20:25:41Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Although, of course, 80% of the populace thinks the country is on the “wrong track”. That track, of course, being dictated by the Republicans for the last 8 years. Doesn’t that indicate that Obama is more “president-worthy” than McCain in the eyes of a substantial majority of the populace? > > Do I get a cookie for perpetuating this inanity? No cookie, since you have made one factual error and committed one logical fallacy. The Democrats have controlled Congress for the last 2 years, so no, the Republicans have not dictated the track for the last 8. And just because most of the country thinks we’re on the wrong track doesn’t mean that any given Democrat is going to be picked as more “president-worthy” than any given Republican. And since the polls are just about even, the 80% figure could very well mean that voters are fed up with both parties, or that they are conflicted about how to get back on the right track. ---
**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 15, 2008, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/179 "2008-09-15T21:11:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No cookie, since you have made one factual error and committed one logical fallacy. Although I didn’t go to the trouble of identifying the logic flaws (thank you for that), I definitely recognize(d) that it contained flawed reasoning. Hence the self-referential nature of the “inanity” comment. (How uncharacteristically clever of me. ;)) I _do_ wish this election had lived up to its early promise of a larger focus on issues and analysis (my “cookie” post and those it references being examples of statistics abuse for distractive purposes). Although, come to think of it, perhaps I’m projecting, misremembering the election thus far (e.g., the Rev. Wright spectacle, “sniper-gate”, etc.). Well, as **Bricker** points out, I guess we have 54 days to see if it improves somewhat. Wouldn’t that be nice… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/180 "2008-09-15T21:17:39Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I think we have sufficiently beaten the Palin book banning and McCain 100 years of war/occupation to death in several other topics, neither of which goes to McCain’s honor and integrity, so getting back on track here. . . . [McCain says Obama didn’t call Palin a pig](http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqSrvKD0cyqbefXbnUu0sZbSv8qAD937C7SO2) > [@](#): > > Did Barack Obama really call Sarah Palin a pig, as a John McCain ad leads people to believe? > > “No,” McCain said Monday. > > The Republican presidential nominee defended the ad anyway, saying Obama “chooses his words very carefully.” The implication: Obama was slyly up to something when he said McCain’s call for change in Washington is “lipstick on a pig,” days after Palin made a lipstick joke at the Republican convention. > … > McCain said of Obama’s comment: “I didn’t like it. So we respond. I think the American people will judge as to whether he and others have treated Governor Palin fairly or not.” But he said he won’t let attacks go unanswered. Integrity is not a word used to describe a man who fathers lies because he doesn’t like what someone says. And what’s up with [McCain’s position on Future Combat Systems?](http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/) A man of integrity would would stake his position, and stick with it even when potential voters disagree with him. Suddenly backing the Airborne Laser just because Obama wants a strategic review of such systems smacks of reactionary politics rather than integrity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149.md?page=10)