Has John McCain lost his mind?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>I can easily agree that McCain “has more integrity and character in his little finger than most politicians have in their official biographies.” The problem is, one of the things I think life has taught me is that integrity and character are somewhat – not completely, but somewhat – overrated as qualifications for political leadership, and especially the Presidency.</p>

<p>One of the really important things we hire a President to do is to make judgments about when to stow the integrity and character temporarily, and to do something really underhanded and/or nasty in the service of some greater good. Or to make compromises to achieve something important, sometimes even deals with the Devil. None of us – liberal or conservative – wants Socrates for President; most of us want Lincoln, someone who saved his integrity and character principally for the greatest things, who practiced dirty politics and politics-politics, and whose personal shortcomings were legion. We also want someone whose pride and sense of self does not stand in the way of getting things done. </p>

<p>(I interject here a line that Ed Rendell, now Pennsylvania’s governor, used often when he was mayor of Philadelphia: “People think that I have power because I’m the mayor. I do have power, but most of the time it’s the power to get people to return my phone calls or to listen to me for five minutes. I spend most of my day on my knees, hat in hand, begging people to do something I want them to do, when they don’t need to do anything. That’s what my job is.” The Presidency is somewhat different, I think, but mostly not. Or, in a democracy, shouldn’t be.)</p>

<p>I think Jimmy Carter had tremendous integrity and personal character, and I think he was a lousy President. Nixon had little of either, and accomplished a lot more, but caused incalculable damage to the nation. Bill Clinton was no great shakes in either department, but was a very effective President given his circumstances until he crossed the line too publicly in the character and integrity fronts. The current President is so quick to abandon principle that it’s practically his second religion, yet he’s willing to kill thousands of people for the sake of preserving the appearance of something like character. Fie! to that. I wish I could trust him to balance ideal and expediency, but I can’t.</p>

<p>There are no pure tests, of course. No one gets far in American politics without some breaks with integrity and character. Even Jimmy Carter had his Ham Jordan. I assume John McCain has people like that, too. But I haven’t seen anything that makes me comfortable that McCain would do a President’s job well.</p>

62

<p>"He is one unimpressive man that the media has spent enormous hours on. </p>

<p>Unimpressive? McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a guest at the Hanoi Hilton."</p>

<p>(Like he had a choice.) (and I voted for him, too.)</p>

<p>“I think Jimmy Carter had tremendous integrity and personal character>”</p>

<p>Yeah, like going on Iranian National TV and toasting the Shah for his commitment to human rights while running a torture school in his home state, and providing torture equipment to the juntas in Chile and Argentina, while the Mothers of the Plaza pled for information about their loved ones. Tremendous integrity my big toe.</p>

63

<p>“Being a guest at the Hanoi Hilton” is not a sufficient qualification for running the country. It is indicative of a lot of things, but not necessarily the scope of leadership, knowledge, ingenuity that many people look to in leaders. And as others may have noted, his <em>judgment</em> (versus character) has not been terribly consistent over the years – another very critical element to leadership of anything, let alone that of a global player.</p>

<p>I never look to just one facet of a person. He may have The Right Stuff for some roles, but I find him an underwhelming Senator as it is. Impressive in political risk-taking? Impressive in intelligence? Impressive as a model of civilian leadership? Impressive in novel approaches to 21st century problems? No, not to me. But other candidates out there, and some people not running, have some of those qualities that McCain, to me, lacks.</p>

64

<p>The quote I objected to was, “He is one unimpressive man that the media has spent enormous hours on.” It didn’t specify as a presidential candidate, although perhaps that was implied. I think merely surviving his situation (I agree he had no choice) is worth something. His loyalty to his fellow prisoners and to the US military ever since is impressive to me. Quite honestly, I’d probably vote for Giuliani over McCain – but either one is preferable to me over a Democrat. (Don’t mean to ruffle feathers, just sharing my opinion.)</p>

65

<p>…“although perhaps that was implied.” Of course it was implied. It’s as much as stated by the title of the thread & the nature of the consequent arguments regarding candidate positions, presidential positioning, etc. The title of the thread was not, “Is John McCain capable of heroic action?” or, “Has John McCain lost his military courage?” or, “Is John McCain a person of character?” He is unimpressive as a presidential candidate, as he has competitors with better political leadership credentials. The media’s been parading him around for absolutely years, similarly working off his Vietnam War experience as if that supposedly makes him an exciting political prospect. I grant you that if <em>additionally</em> he had the kind of political skill & civic vision that others have, his war experience would be a value-added aspect, providing a personal profile that some others do <em>not</em> have.</p>

66

<p>The title of the thread is “Has John McCain lost his mind?” Your comment about him being singularly unimpressive struck me as unkind, as does your post above.</p>

67

<p>wait didn’t he have an out of wedlock black child in south carolina?</p>

<p>I think carl rove told me that… ;)</p>

<p>I like John McCain the senator, I will continue to like john as a senator. </p>

<p>In some ways I agree with his view on Iraq, but the reality of that is we have to go to a draft then and really make it happen.You can’t fight a war using the fewest anything. It is not name that tune. You can’t continue to cycle through the same people for 5 or 6+ tours and there is simply not enough coming freely now. </p>

<p>I don’t think enough americans will buy into JM’s ideas at this point. He was a better canadate last time, than this time. Maybe he should have run with Kerry afterall. He’d be vp now and inline for the next presidency.</p>

68

<p>"The title of the thread is “Has John McCain lost his mind?” </p>

<p>My point exactly. Most people I know would actually have the opinion that the thread’s title is way more “unkind” than anything I said. (Implication: the man’s insane.)</p>

<p>You need to take this up with the OP. I’ve stopped explaining, and certainly apologizing, for having a political opinion on a political thread on a discussion forum. You obviously like the guy. So lobby his party to nominate him already, so that you can vote for him. </p>

<p>I’ve said a number of positive things about him, and I’ve also contrasted him just recently here with other current & potential competitors who most likely do <em>not</em> have such personal assets. I never said the guy didn’t have personal assets. I said that personal assets are not enough to govern, & JHS said it I think the best (so far). Excellent comparison with Jimmy Carter, JHS. One of our least effective presidents & one of most effective & respected ex-presidents in his various humanitarian roles. Because you’re a nice guy doesn’t mean you’re presidential material.</p>

<p>You see, this is always a danger on the media’s part. They present exaggerated & distorted views of lots of people (not just candidates, but certainly candidates), building unrealistic expectations based on one trait here, another claim to fame there. It’s just that in McCain’s case, there is more of a distorted media presentation between aspects of a past & potential for a future than how the media evaluates many other candidates. The media can sometimes be less of a friend in the publicity department & more of a hazard, <em>because</em> of their excessive efforts.</p>

69

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d say he’s just “OK” in the Senate hearings on the war. By that, I’m not commenting on his positions, but rather the intellect on display in his questioning and comments. For example, agree or disagree with him, watch the way Levin’s mind works. He’s brilliant. Warner’s sharp. Biden’s sharp.</p>

<p>There are actually quite a few impressive Senators, on both sides of the aisle – intellectually speaking. It’s hard to watch a House hearing once you get used to the Senate.</p>

70

<p>“One of our least effective presidents & one of most effective & respected ex-presidents in his various humanitarian roles.”</p>

<p>So now, tell me, what is it that Carter didn’t do that you would have wanted him to do? Open a second torture school? Goad Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons against Iran? Preside over the largest tax increases in U.S. history? (thank you, Ronnie)</p>

71

<p>

In general I agree with this. However, when I see Teddy Kennedy open his mouth I have to wonder what it is about the good people of Massachusetts that have made him a permanent fixture there. (I could also say the same thing about Robert Byrd and the late Strom Thurmond, but perhaps they were sharp at some point in their lives.) Teddy on the other hand should be eternally grateful that his last name is Kennedy.</p>

<p>Actually, come to think of it, Mass. has two duds in the Senate.</p>

72

<p>Oklahoma wins the contest for the stupidest pair of Senators, hands down. Cornyn, in the next state to the south, is also a fairly dim bulb. Hmm. Maybe it’s something in the water down there. Or radioactive dust from the town that does the nuclear weapons work in West Texas. </p>

<p>As for Kennedy speaking, Doonesbury once nailed it: “A verb, Senator Kennedy. We need a verb!”</p>

73

<p>I would put Lindsey Graham high on the mental midget list. He belongs back in the House.</p>

<p>To answer the question about Kennedy. He runs unopposed in Massachusetts because he is viewed as an excellent Senator and an institution. He’s known to be quiet adept at working the Republicans to get things done.</p>

<p>I vote for him, even when I am voting for a Republican in the same election. Why? I think the Senate needs one “Ted Kennedy”.</p>

<p>Don’t ask me about the other Massachusetts Senator.</p>

74

<p>I have a lot of respect for John McCain the man and even Johm McCain the senator, but senators rarely make good presidents. I don’t see the present crop changing that either. Of the current crop of Democrats I think Bill Richardson would make the strongest candidate.</p>

75

<p>BTW, on the subject of John McCain misplacing his mind:</p>

<p>FOX News arbiter of all things right-wing, Weekly Standard pundit Fred Barnes, said tonight that McCain was killing himself with his attacks on the Bush administration, including a new one today. I believe his exact words were, “losing it”. Barnes, of course, has an intraveneous drip in his arm, straight from the center of the red-meat Republican base.</p>

<p>Interestingly, he and Mort Kondrake and Republican spokesman/new anchor Britt Hume also thought, as I do, that Clinton intentionally goaded Obama into a mistake over this Geffen flap, successfully driving him off his angel’s perch. Hmmmm. Maybe the articles about Rupert Murdoch supporting Clinton are right after all?</p>

76

<p>Meanwhile, Geffen’s words are on the front page of every major paper in the country. (I think Obama got much the better of the exchange. But it is only a butterfly flap. They’ll be more to follow.)</p>

77

<p>

</p>

<p>Which is fine with Clinton. For the voters she is targeting, Geffen supporting her opponent is almost as useful as Osama bin Laden supporting her opponent.</p>

<p>She looks tough and aggressive…attributes that are crucial for a woman to win the White House.</p>

<p>Obama is in a corner. How can he attack? Everytime he gives that “I’m pure as the driven snow and I won’t go negative” spiel, voters will remember in the back of their minds that his “peeps” called President Clinton a liar.</p>

<p>Remember the prize fight analogy. Everytime the bell rings for a new round, Obama knows Clinton’s going to hit him.</p>

78

<p>folks, Mini’s post #70 is a nonsequitor if ever there was one. I guess they don’t teach that at Williams.</p>

<p>Because I’m capable of judging that McCain is a weaker candidate than many others (in either party), that means I’m right-wing, approve of torture schools, or that I’m for “Ronnie”? </p>

<p>Don’t answer that. Hint: that was um, rhetorical. I wonder if they teach rhetoric at Williams – the classic variety, not the political or inflammatory variety.</p>

<p>Hint #2: Yours was a flame.</p>

<p>Although my father and I (not an approver of torture schools) often did not agree on political matters, does not mean that I did not respect the integrity of his own views & his rationale for those. (And that <em>is</em> something that they did teach me at Berkeley.)</p>

79

<p>So…I’m still waiting. What would you have wanted Carter to do that he didn’t?</p>

<p>It isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m sorry if you understood it as such. </p>

<p>(As for his views, I could care less about the “lust in his heart”. I DO care about what he did, or does. And, as for integrity - a political leader who goes on another nation’s tv and toasts its torturing leader for his commitment to human rights while training the torturers back in his own country, that’s about as low in the integrity department as I can possibly imagine. And you have no idea how much difference he could have made in the world, and could make in the world, with a simple apology.)</p>

<p>(Here’s where he -and Rumsfeld (of the notorious handshake) - could make their apologies, in case they need any help.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.payvand.com/news/03/feb/1128.html[/url]”>http://www.payvand.com/news/03/feb/1128.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.trivago.co.uk/teheran-84853/hotel/martyrs-cemetery-139060/review-o20336[/url]”>http://www.trivago.co.uk/teheran-84853/hotel/martyrs-cemetery-139060/review-o20336&lt;/a&gt; )</p>

80

<p>mini, I think your longest paragraph in post #79 makes some excellent points. I’m not quibbling with those. I was merely pointing out (as I think JHS was, too, if I’m not overstating the nature of her/his remarks) is that character is not necessarily combined with effective leadership. Jimmy Carter, for example, had difficulty working within a team, and generating team efforts as a president. There was probably more than one reason for that (temperament, perhaps? – some people work better alone; another reason was reputed to be that he is a very bright person & that sometimes highly intelligent people work best independently). This latter point was made during his presidency by someone who worked with him or alongside him in a non-executive function. Doesn’t mean C doesn’t & didn’t have a lot of fine qualities, indeed of national & certainly now international stature. </p>

<p>Nor do I think leadership should be valued completely apart from character. Obviously the best candidates should have as much of both elements as possible. Certainly being respected as a person can increase one’s leadership effectiveness; it’s just that it’s not always enough to be personally respected. So much skill is involved in politics, & so much compromising, which historically many presidents have admitted to detesting. (Sometimes having to compromise their principles in order for desired – and ethical – legislation to get passed, with lots of contradictory trade-offs.)</p>

<p>The best leaders, in and out of politics, are those who can persuade others that idealism can also be pragmatism. Not just that “politics is the art of the possible,” but that politics can also be the art of the morally desirable. (JMO)</p>