John McCain should not be President
By Socrates Posted in User Blogs — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I do not yet know who I support for President in 2008, but I know I that do not support John McCain. From all the evidence of his public life, he lacks the fortitude, the executive experience, and the strength of conviction needed in a President.
McCain has a history of doing things to get what he wants, or even just doing something to get past a crisis, rather than sticking to principle even if it means doing nothing or doing something unpopular.I've never been tortured. I can't say whether my own fortitude would hold up under such duress. But I'm not running for President. John McCain is.
McCain broke under pressure in Viet Nam, both to reveal such details of his mission as would help him gain medical treatment and by signing what he describes as a confession of war crimes. Not all prisoners revealed the details of their missions or signed such confessions. If we must elect a Viet Nam POW, it would be from the pool of those who upheld their nation's honor that I would like a President chosen.
In the Senate, McCain has continued his practice of cooperating with the adversary, even to the exclusion of his nominal allies.
In crafting McCain-Feingold, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2003 (BCRA), McCain sought to be the champion of campaign finance reform, addressing a problem affecting the political class more than the public at large. His solution, to limit and control through regulation how money can be spent, has set him at odds with free speech advocates across the political spectrum. In this case, if it is not fair to say that he put together a solution to take a problem off the front pages rather than to fully address it, then it is fair to say that he was following a core belief. That core belief seems to be that since (to him) clean government is the object of free political speech, clean government is more important than free speech and speech can be limited in pursuit of clean government.
Recently, the Senate passed the McCain-Kennedy Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S.1033), for which there is no other word than "abomination". McCain reached across the aisle to create this monster with Senator Kennedy, author of the immigration laws that created the mess in the first place. It appears, as of this writing, that S.1033 will be allowed to die quietly. While it would be best if all copies of it were shredded and its image expunged from the Internet, not passing it into law is an acceptable outcome.
Why does McCain do it? Why is he so prone to work with those whose goals are so different from and who hold such contempt for his party? I believe it is because he lacks the ability to play a team game. Not wanting to risk defeat while sticking to principle, he compromises any principles a priori in search of building a winning team. Restated, he would rather compromise with his foes than with the members of his own party.
A President wields considerable power. He can shape the political scene, set the agenda for the public debate and lead it, and he appoints what is becoming the most powerful branch of government, the Federal Judiciary. The candidate for whom I vote will be a man of principle, whether or not I agree with all of his positions. I want to know, as is possible, how he will behave in office generally and in a crisis especially.
On second thought, with McCain we do know those things, and it is because of that that I cannot support him.
Even the Democrats would be stupid enough to try to press this to their advantage. The backlash from that would be about the only thing that could get McCain elected.
Yes, where I come from, victims of war crimes tend to get a pass for being victimized.
explicitly that I do not question is patriotism in any way. I do question is fortitude, and his ability to uphold the interests of his party.
the second 'unimpeachable' should have read 'slinging mud instead of attacking the ideas that animate him.'
McCain broke under pressure in Viet Nam, both to reveal such details of his mission as would help him gain medical treatment and by signing what he describes as a confession of war crimes.
I didn't vote for John McCain in the GOP primaries in 2000, and I wouldn't vote for him now, but this is a terribly low blow. Given enough time, everybody breaks under torture, at least a little bit. They break because they know they'll either break or die. That's why they still torture people; it's effective. When you've endured weeks and months of constant pain, and the only thing you can think of is making it end, signing a piece of paper full of lies (which everybody will know are lies anyway) looks like a pretty good deal. Nobody has the right to attack McCain in this way, period.
should be appreciated by all. However, I agree with you - I will not support him for President nor vote for him, as his abiding interest is only in John McCain. His support of either the immigration bill with Kennedy or the campaign finance bill with Feingold are sufficient to disqualify him from consideration.
McCain broke under pressure in Viet Nam, both to reveal such details of his mission as would help him gain medical treatment and by signing what he describes as a confession of war crimes. Not all prisoners revealed the details of their missions or signed such confessions. If we must elect a Viet Nam POW, it would be from the pool of those who upheld their nation's honor that I would like a President chosen.
It's not a particularly good tact and even if true, it still places him head and shoulders above most other veterans-turned-politicians in his war conduct. I will not criticize him for it. I'll criticize him for everything else, but not that.
against talking about McCain's POW status.
But my intent was to show it as a part, or even the formative event, of his career.
when it comes to believing that John McCain should not be POTUS.
Forty year old war records are off the table as are conduct under torture as a POW. The only way they could be an issue is if McCain accepted his nomination by saluting the convention delegates and making his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. He won't.
There are more than enough reasons to NOT nominate him since 1996 (picked at random).
In the case of McCain, its a whole lot of the latter and much less of the former. Teaming up with Daschle to propose fake tax cuts while trying to sabotage the Republican tax cuts is not an example of bipartisanship.
I also do not see the value in working with people across the aisle when you can't even work with people in your own party. Most of his initiatives have more support from Democrats than Republicans. Maybe he is in the wrong party?
I am certainly no fan of McCain, but some of your points are perhaps not as well thought out as they might be.
For example, what he did or did not do as a POW forty years ago does not have that much bearing on what he will do or not do today. People change. I change. I hope and pray that I am far better in all ways that matter than the person I was forty years ago.
As for "cooperating with the adversary", in another context that is called "bi-partisanship". The art of government is compromise, unless you wish to live under a dictatorship, or perhaps the tyranny of the majority.
No, I have two main beefs with McCain. They both stem from his arrogance. One, the philosophy he betrays when he says that he prefers "clean government" to "so-called freedom of speech". That scares the daylights out of me. The second is his proven mean streak. He can be vicious when crossed. I don't want someone like that anywhere near the Oval Office.
is a "fake" tax cut? I don't think that is a logical possibility. One may argue that taxes ought be cut more or that the wrong taxes were cut but either a tax is cut or it isn't. You can't fake that.
You may not like McCain, indeed I have qualms about him as a candidate. But his war record is unimpeachable, and to do so is unimpeachable.
Yes, they are that stupid and/or reckless, depending on the effect.
...over this so far, and I don't want to see Socrates abused over this; he's a value-adding commenter. I just thought that point was a misstep.
That point angered me greatly... as a current wartime veteran.
election issue, regardless of how people may feel about it. It certainly would be used against McCain if he relied heavily on his military service for self-promotion. The Democrats love revenge, and would want to settle scores for the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry--which I also thought were fair only because the senator used his military service as a selling point. When that is done, it invites scrutiny. Period.
It happened all of the time in POW camps. You should read "Return with Honor" by George "Bud" Day, or any other POW survivor account, to include "Faith of my Fathers" by McCain. What you abviously fail to recognize is that they ALL had failures. When so many were ready to throw themselves against the wall over the guilt they felt for betraying their country, their fellow prisoners (who experienced the same pressures... though with sometimes lesser or greater breaking points) felt that it was their duty to pick their fellow POWs off the ground.
This is off the table, and oh by the way will get anyone attacked by even the MSM more quickly than Ann Coulter in Michael Moore rally.
It's all in the context, isn't it?
the Democrats would do it. Of that, at least, I am certain. It would be via surrogates and the MSM echo chamber, but it would be done. And, yes, it might be the only thing that could get the man into the White House. My gut tells me it would probably inflict more damage than backlash, but again you could be right about the effect. That, too, is conjecture on both our parts.
But it would be done.
McCain broke under pressure in Viet Nam, both to reveal such details of his mission as would help him gain medical treatment and by signing what he describes as a confession of war crimes.
You're usually better than that, Socrates.
Moe
PS: I am not supporting McCain in the upcoming election.
for political self-promotion, it invites scrutiny. If a nexus can be shown between what happened in Hanoi and current behavior (which hasn't been done), then the issue becomes quite important. It is pure pop psychology to attribute McCain's more recent behavior to some sort of residual Stockholm Syndrome, yet that is how it strikes me when the senator pleases his enemies at the expense of his friends. Again, that is worthless conjecture but how I feel about the man.
Yet all that is irrelevant, I agree. McCain has many reasons to be opposed for higher office, and they all stem from his senate career.
When compared to somebody like Kerry, who came back to do the bidding of the NVA and VC of his own free will. Kerry signed a piece of paper full of lies about other people, and all he did that for was the advancement of his own pathetic political career.
I agree with the last three points, but you should drop the first one.
Using it (even if true) doesn't show his lack of resolve, especially as a politician. It's a little too provocative and takes away from a pretty good argument (Ann Coulter).
I do not hold his conduct against him personally, and as a peacetime veteran have lots of respect for the sacrifice of any veteran of war, especially a POW.
McCain uses his Viet Nam experience as a campaign point. That experience is on the table for his opponents, too.
His experience in Hanoi disqualifies him from further military service, including serving as the CinC. His is a valuable perspective in the Senate, but not in the White House.
I just think you are only hurting it by choosing a provocative way of expressing it. I eluded to Ann Coulter. She made some pretty valid points, but those were overshadowed by the way she made them. It may help her sell books, but it hurts her message because she is easily written off as a demagogue.
It's also logically out of place if your point is that he seeks the approval of his enemy over the approval of his allies. Unless you seriously want to claim that he is a traitor on some level.
it comes under scrutiny when it is used as a selling point. This can cut both ways. As you wrote, it helped Washington, Jackson, Tyler, Grant, and so forth. It also harmed, in recent memory, John Kerry. I can't really say which way it would go with McCain--although his opponents run a serious risk of a backlash if they aren't careful.
Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room at the risk of much abuse from those who think it is disrespectful.
I respect McCain as a war veteran. I respect McCain's ability to survive as a POW. The reason torture exists is because it works - only on exceptionally rare persons does it not and sadly they don't live to tell about it.
Compromise at the price of the party and/or the end goal is not always necessary. McCain doesn't seem to get that.
I am starting to see a consensus that people want to give McCain a pass for Hanoi, or at least to avoid the topic.
I understand the sentiment, and will shut up about it now.
Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about, and your ignorance shows.
Everyone breaks. Period, dot, end of sentence. Enough torture, enough time, and there isn't a man living or dead who won't break. If that's your criteria for President, the office is gonna be vacant a long time.
They don't teach "Resistance" in SERE School so people won't break. They teach it so that when they break they give up as little as possible, and more importantly - so that they will SURVIVE after breaking. It was a real problem in Korea - POWs would break, feel that they had lost everything by doing so, and end up suiciding or even flipping to the other side. Which is why SERE and the Code of Conduct showed up afterwords.
The Code of Conduct doesn't require you to tell them nothing. It says "I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability." The Air Force further clarifies:
"Understand that short of death, it is unlikely that a POW may prevent a skilled enemy interrogator, using all available psychological and physical methods of coercion, from obtaining some degree of compliance by the POW with captor demands. However, understand that if the interrogator takes the Service member past the point of maximum endurance, the POW must recover ("bounce back") as quickly as possible and resist each successive captor exploitation effort to the utmost. Understand that a forced answer on one point does not authorize continued compliance. The POW must resist answering again at the next interrogation session."
So until you at least walk though even the tiniest bit of experience, shut your gob.
Criticizing McCain for "breaking under torture" is beneath redstate.com. One would expect this kind of hatred at Daily Kos. Someone should consider banning this "Socrates."
I stopped reading that post with this line you pointed out. I don't want to know what being a POW is like any time soon. But, it is apparent that this cat has no idea what even a "training" POW camp is like, as we have on Fairchild AFB in WA. Absolutely amazing...
As for "cooperating with the adversary", in another context that is called "bi-partisanship".
In another context that is called "selling our your own party." In another context that is called "abandoning conservative principles."
McCain broke under pressure in Viet Nam, both to reveal such details of his mission as would help him gain medical treatment and by signing what he describes as a confession of war crimes. Not all prisoners revealed the details of their missions or signed such confessions. If we must elect a Viet Nam POW, it would be from the pool of those who upheld their nation's honor that I would like a President chosen.
That's kind of low don't ya think? Everyone breaks eventually and tells the interrogator exactly what he wants to hear (whether it's true or not). Serving in the military during wartime is a very honorable thing and I can't imagine what it would be like to be captured. At least he served, and to me that's much more honor than what other politicians military records can claim.
a low blow. Kerry was never an agent of the VC or the NVA. He never consciously did their bidding. However, he was a liar (see the winter soldier investigations), and an opportunist. That is certainly bad enough, but we don't have to heap on false slurs.
How about one paragraph acknowledging that he was a torture victim while fighting for the United States. How about a slight mention of his passing on a chance to leave the torture camp due to his father's power in order to let others go first. I don't know about the other, but I don't want him to get "a pass" for his actions in Vietnam. I want people to remember what a real war hero looks like. This is one.
Knock him for his politics, but his war record is beyond commendable.
Re; McCain uses his Viet Nam experience as a campaign point.
Eisenhower, Grant, Andrew Jackson and even George Washington all ran on their military resumes. What is the problem with this?
Re: His experience in Hanoi disqualifies him from further military service, including serving as the CinC.
Why? Are you saying POWs may not serve in the military after their release? Why not (assuming they are able bodied)? And what dopes hat hasave to do with the presidency. Any number of people are disqualified for military service because or age or physical disability-- are they also disqualified from office?
I guess I don't grasp the animosity toward McCain. He's no more a liberal than, say, Romney, and a good deal less of one than Giuliani. Why pass up a likely shoe-in for the White House, one whose age will probably preclude a two term presidency? McCain would be care-taker president, allowing the GOP to hold onto the White House while it does some much needed house (House?)-cleaning and soul searching and finds a way to make itself look new and shiny again to a public that is now weary of its failures.
The list of reasons to personally dislike John McCain and not support his nomination is so very long and detailed, how about out of respect and decorum, how about we leave out the events of the Hanoi hilton? Reading your comments on the matter, the classic lefty "chickenhawk" arguement -almost- began to make sense to me.