Country First? Never Mind
Given the catastrophes of conservative rule -- captured here in a video provided to Republican convention delegates by the Campaign for America's Future -- John McCain has pitched himself as the "lone maverick," the one who puts country first. "This election is not about issues," says Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
Of course, the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate belies the claim of a maverick who puts country over politics. The choice of Palin can only be seen as a political stroke, designed to inspire the right-wing evangelical base of the party that had been notably skeptical about McCain. Given her zealous and extreme fundamentalist positions, she won't win many Hillary votes -- that was always a ruse -- but she will galvanize the evangelical right for McCain. It is clear that the man who hectors constantly that the war against terror is the "transcendent challenge of the 21st Century" just made a choice that placed his political needs over what he considers the central national mission.
But, this isn't an aberration. McCain has flip flopped on many positions -- supporting Bush's tax breaks after opposing them, catering to the right on immigration after resisting them, embracing Jerry Falwell after condemning him -- in pursuit of his party's nomination.
For an old Washington hand, none of this is surprising. McCain has been in Washington for over a quarter century of compromises and dealing. The question always for career politicians is what is left of their character? Are there any core beliefs that are not for trade or for sale?
What is left for John McCain? The formative experience of McCain's life -- as he reminds us regularly -- was the time he spent as a POW, surviving terrible torture. That experience no doubt led McCain to lead the effort to enforce the Geneva Conventions' ban on torture on the Bush administration in the wake of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the CIA's rendition operations. In pushing to make the military's code of conduct the law of the land, McCain not only stood for the best of America's tradition but also was expressing the core of his own personal experience.
He had the votes to defeat the president on the Military Commission Act in 2006. And then he gave it away. Faced with the reality that enacting a ban on torture would cost him politically in the Republican Party, McCain surrendered. He signed on to a "compromise" bill that left the President to determine, in his sole discretion, which interrogation methods did or did not comply with the Geneva Conventions' provisions. He empowered the president to define what constituted torture. He simply surrendered on this core issue. For the best treatment, check out Glenn Greenwald here.
Now in Washington, politicians are constantly faced with the need to compromise. You give up something to make some progress. You vote for bad bills in order to placate powerful local interests. You decide which battles you can fight, and duck the others. That makes any politician vulnerable for criticism, but is part of the business.
But every leader must have a set of principles that can't be compromised -- otherwise everything is transactional, everything for sale. When McCain is willing to sign away the principle derived from what is the defining moment of his life, then the question is what core of character remains?
We've seen this before in powerful leaders. Colin Powell, for example, was formed by his experience as a young officer in the Vietnam War. He -- and others -- vowed that never again would they allow US troops to be led into war without adequate preparation, a clear mission, an exit strategy. It became known as the Powell doctrine. As Secretary of State, Powell faced many issues where he was rolled or ignored by the neo-cons around Dick Cheney who were driving the policy. He chose to stay and fight for another day. But on Iraq, he had to know that the mission was false, the force inadequate, the plans for exit unclear. And he had the power to stop the war if he had chosen to go public and resign. Instead he chose to stay at the table, to fight the future battles. In doing so, however, he gave away the central core belief of his career. After that, anything is negotiable.
That's where we are with McCain. The pursuit of the presidency is a powerful thing. The Republican Party, so captured by the far right, a difficult terrain to traverse. To win the nomination, he was prepared to give away even his core. Politics came not just before country but before core conscience.
So when Davis says the election isn't about "issues," or presumably the conservative record of failure, but about character, he is peddling McCain's message, but exposing his tragic weakness.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Can you say "pander"? Joe Biden's right when he stated the John McCain of 2000 wouldn't support today's candidate McCain.
I think this comment from Sen. Schumer about sums up the Democrats view of the good of the country.
"I like Joe Lieberman, but that's a big mistake for him. To be pro-war and to have his views on the issues, everyone respects that. But you don't go over to the other side." -- Sen. Charles Schumer
What other side is that? Silly me, I though United meant something.
So I ask everyone a question. What happens if McCain and Palin win?
We cower in fear.
It looks like the Democrats will get a lock on the house and senate both (though probably not a veto-proof one). So, you'll be in a situation where anything McCain wants to do and they don't, they can stop. But, anything they want to do and he doesn't, he can veto. Stalemate, nothing will happen on the front where the executive and legislative branch have to cooperate.
BUT, McCain can do something rash like send a missle into Iran to take our their Nuclear power plant WITHOUT THEIR APPROVAL. So,they close the Strait of Harmooz (sic) which they have promised to do if we attack. 30% of the worlds oil is cut off, the price doubles, gasoline jumps to $12 a gallon and viola...yo
Mac's mind is shot...he doesn't remember that a conscience is a good and essential component in all men.
The Kool Aid this party serves seems to have a special ingredient that eats the conscience first so that what is left is just the "operative" and Mac is IT for today's game. His camp said he doesn't speak for the campaign, his handlers speak. Good Grief.
All this Palin stuff just reminds me that Mac never expected to win, the rethugs do not want to win, the party can't drag anyone to the convention and Palin likes to talk a lot. She offers good filler.
A long shot Ice Cream Cookie isn't going to derail our long sought and much admired charismatic candidate whose time is now.
Unless they can tinker with the voting machines AGAIN...wh
Well with Palin on the ticket it's now "Alaska First".
I am a voter who is more interested in issues because, unless some overpowering scandal is revealed about either of the candidates, I take all of them to be people of character. What I want is to know what the new President intends to do to start reversing the calamity of the past 8 years of the Bush Administration, both on the domestic and foreign fronts. I honor McCain's military service, but I am sorry to say that service, and being a POW, is not enough if his stance continues the policies of Bush/Chaney. Mr Davis must be told that in these dire economic conditions, as well as the costly stupid occupation of Iraq, the candidate's stands on the issues is paramount in voters' minds. Right wing evangelicals, who are not suffering economically, may be interested in hot-button social issues, but the majority of the people I know, including born again christians, are determined not be fooled by self righteous Republicans who in the end turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.
McCain's entire career is based on journalists repeating what other journalists say about him and never actually comparing his image with reality. It can't last forever.
Like it or not McCain has gone against his party and his party's beliefs many of times throughout his career. I think the sign of a good leader that can get things done in this country has to have that quality.
I haven't seen that from Obama but I do not however think that McCain is a great leader meaning once again we are stuck making a choice between 2 career politicians that have never ran a small business or anything in the provate sector, are both elitists and detatched from normal people.
The case against McCain and his changing course on issues is compelling, yet, the clever politician does "live to fight another day," no? But the case against his choice of Palin is very, very weak. It is a masterful stroke. In the Governor of Alaska we have an accomplished person with the "right stuff," no matter all the silly chatter from the surprised media that can't handle the choice. (Don't need to mention the chilled democrats -- well, maybe just a little so I can gloat.) Contrary to all the blarney about "only being a governor two years," two years is a long time as an executive where the decisions are made. Two years is a long time, period. If we're to be honest we'd recognize Alaska has done quite well during Governor Palin's lengthy leadership. The nitpicking aimed at the Governor is evidence in itself.
You cannot attack Palin on experience if you are Obama, you must leave that up to Biden because Obama doesn't have the experience to lend credibility to the attack:
Barack Obama was in office 767 days before his Presidential annoucement . . . Sarah Palin was in office 635 days before being announced as a VP candidate.
Barack Obama says he is in charge of 2,500 people at his campaign . . . Sarah Palin is in charge of 25,000 employees in Alaska.
Barack Obama says his budget is $36 million a month or $432 million . . . Sarah Palin operates a $9 billion budget, and manages $13 billion in revenue in Alaska.
http://www
thank you for letting us know what the new talking points are.
Barack Obama served four years in the Illinois senate, and is a constitutional lawyer, She is a housewife that got involved through the PTA.
That is how many governmental employees there are in Alaska. Palin does not actively manage 25000 people, that is a complete falsehood. That is like saying that Bush is in charge of 300 million employees.
She could be a great politician. If she weren't such a fundamentalist Christian. She may mature into a great leader. Or she may destroy the separation of church and state.
Sorry, I actually lived in Alaska for 14 years.
Color me not impressed, especially when I hear people who've obviously never lived there extolling the "tough experience" of our state's highest office.
Two of most prestigious governors, Eagan (D) and Hickel (R), only had high-school diplomas. Hickel did make it to Nixon's cabinet as Interior Secretary, but neither men had the chops or experience to take over as POTUS had they been chosen as Vice Presidents.
And Sarah Palin doesn't even begin to fill either of their shoes.
Right, i think what you forget is that Obama was comparing managing his campaign to that of Mayor Palin's time, not her her 1yr and half as governor.
His comparison is fair, as mayor of wassi (oh what ever) she was in charge of 50 employees and a budget of 6 millions..
Road Apples is all you can come up with.
18 months is by no means a "Lengthy leadership".
Obama has served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, and has served in the U.S. Senate since 2004. Seems a bit longer than 18 months.
If you are going to make experience an issue at least back it up with some substantive facts.
Even if the "18 months" figure was true (NOT) it does represent a significant period to gauge success or not. For example, the Governor sent back to the State's citizens an oil rebate. State Senator Obama voted "present" approx 147 times on tough issues. Why the avoidance of responsibility? Not sure what Senator Obama has done in the US Senate other than run for the Presidency.
We could knock the ball back and forth over the net about experience. In my view what is the deciding factor is how that experience is gained, either in a collective atmosphere as one (a senator) amongst many, or as one (a governor) exclusively.
Well said Robert. That's why you get to write the columns and we get to read them!
thank you for making this about McCain rather than Palin. In all the talk about Palin we forget that the person who selected her is the head of the ticket- John McCain. He was a maverick when it suited him and now he is a conventional Republican because it suits him. You give him too much credit- there was never an inner core. He never intended to serve his country - he was just too damn incompetant to avoid the missile. Had he intended to serve his country, he would have applied himself to graduate at the top of his class. Instead he spent his time drinking and fornicating. Talk about being on government welfare!
You are seriously going to say don't go after Palin but go after making him a bad guy for getting shot down . . .
You were on to something with the first sentence, then you screwed everything up.
Judge Judy once wrote a book called "Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining." Right now that is what McSame and the Republicans are doing with their "Country First" mantra. They're taking a huge piss on America's leg by making all sorts of calculated, destructive, and shamelessly self-serving decisions that will outright cripple this country if they win, but all the while they're shouting that they "put country first," telling us that the warm liquid we feel running down our gams is Hurricane Gustav.
"Country First" is the new Republican punch line.
Which country?
I like "America First."
Country first reminds me of a radio station format.
can someone please inform me on whether or not you be a member of a party and register for another party. they are not mutually exclusive. does joining a party automatically register me? is this proof?
Dunno, but one should have the right to vote for whomever they choose.
No. Many register in one party and vote in another. Look at Lieberman, he was elected as a Democrat then changed his mind after wining his seat.
C'mon, the Kennedy's were hot. Obama is hot. She is hot. Who's anyone kidding, it's about something else?
Also, she sounds like she will keep her cool as well as her marbles for the whole campaign and possibly thereafter. Actually, she speaks pretty well. Look, McCain could have chosen Lieberman or Condoleeza.
Well said, thanks. It IS about character, and McCain's disolved in his lust for power, just as Powell's did and Bush's did (well, there is actually no evidence that Bush ever HAD character, so maybe that's a faulty example). The Republican party is full of these conscience-less shells, and we will be dealing with them in perpetuity because, inhindered by the normal impulses to truth and honor, they can and will do and say ANYTHING in their aggressive grab for power (and the wealth it brings).
You can make the case that the US is suffering a collective delusion which allows the ego to run absolutely wild, without moral constraints (they have corrupted religion in their service), and the institutionalzation of that egoic greed (and its concurrent paranoias and cruelties) is perfected in today's Republican party, where truth has no place, honor is turned on its head and, the most egregious symptom, obviously corrupt means justify manifestly corrupt ends. And you get Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Bohener, Tom Delay, et al. as their celebrated poster boys.
Worst: they can deceive almost half the electorate with regularity, allowing them to cheat what was essentially an honor system of voting in order to win power. And then use the government
Bravo. That was exceptionally well said!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
