He made a joke that backfired on him. The crowd got the humor in it. He could have backed out of it gracefully, that’s what writers are for.
It’s actually crystal clear that he was making no reference to Palin at all.
Magiver, I’d still like you to answer my question, the one I’ve quoted above. And remember, again, that McCain used the same phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan.
And after that, maybe we can get back to talking about how McCain has lost all integrity and honor in this campaign.
Of course it’s no different, if you genuinely think George W. Bush was doing the best thing by this country. Demonstrably, he wasn’t, ergo, Sullivan’s opinion that he sold out.
Post 28. If you don’t get the humor that the crowd was laughing at I can’t explain it to you.
How much integrity does one need to be the POTUS, and how does one measure integrity?
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.”
Though I agree that a person wuth unfailing integrity would always sell out their party before selling out their country.
Why? Because both phrases contained the word “lipstick”?
Nah, on second thought, since you asked so sincerely, I realize that integrity is a non-issue and can never be judged by one’s actions.
You win.
:rolleyes:
Nope. Still stinks. With regards to that point, he’s either putting thoughts into McCain’s head or assuming that John McCain had psychic powers that he was using to predict the future.
Fine, take it up with Sullivan then, I don’t subscribe to the same opinion. I do believe it was shameful that McCain allowed Bush – the same man who destroyed McCain in the 2000 primary campaign against him – to do the same and besmirch the reputation of his genuine friend, John Kerry. An honorable man would step forward and call for an end to such despicable and filthy campaign strategies. McCain didn’t, hence, no integrity.
Don’t forget that you’re talking about the 2004 election. There was plenty of prior Bush-as-President before that to refer back to.
He did denounce the Swift Boat ads. Were you talking about something else?
Oh yeah, that was really forceful and effective, no? Please. He had to be asked for his opinion, then hedged.
The irony is, what he passively claimed to deplore 4 years ago, he’s actively participating in now, since it will potentially benefit him.
So actually, that doesn’t even change my opinion, it just solidifies it even more. John McCain has no integrity.
I’m shocked you have come to this assessment. SHOCKED I tell you!
How do you feel about the fact that Andrew Sullivan has come to this assessment?
That seems at least sincere and an apt criticism. What do you think he should have done?
I agree, with the exception of the adjective “passive,” and said as much in my first post here.
Fine and fair. Simply addressing my problems with an argument posed in the editorial.
In politics? Use one of these.
While I have no doubt he was sincere, I take issue with the use of “urged” in the section you quoted. It looks more like he simply said, "I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.” That doesn’t strike me as “urging”, but if he did more, I am and was unaware of it at the time. Which is kind of the point, no? I think a principled man who’d been damaged by this tactic himself, would’ve stepped up on his own (as opposed to waiting to be asked), and pressed both the President and his party not to tolerate this type of attack campaign. But as much as it supposedly offended him, he did little to nothing to actually try to make it stop, knowing the damage would be deep and severe. That doesn’t strike me as honorable in the least.
But you, like Sullivan, are assuming. You only know what he did publicly and you are forcing your opinions on it.