John, John, John…
Here’s my confession: although I’m an Independent and usually vote Democrat, I seriously would have considered voting for John McCain if he’d gotten the Republican nomination in 2000. McCain appeared intelligent, open-minded, principled, and moderate. Then G. W. Bush was nominated, and, almost overnight, McCain started saying supportive, complimentary things about a man for whom he had recently clearly had contempt. Politics as usual, I thought; McCain is still hoping that someday he’ll be president, so he’s not burning his bridges. Speaking hypocritically, perhaps, but not starting any fires.
Skip forward several years, and John McCain is again seeking the Republican presidential nomination. In order to make his stance clear on the Iraq war, McCain recently clarified his position: “I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.”
Ok, some would agree with that, but others would not. Others, say, like… John McCain. On Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation last November, McCain said, “While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans’ respect and gratitude for his many years of public service,”
So…. McCain believes that Rumsfeld deserves our respect and gratitude for being one of the worst secretaries of defense? I’m having trouble buying that. Or has the situation in Iraq changed so much in the last three months that Rumsfeld, in retrospect, appears dangerously inept? Not from what I’ve seen; pretty much status quo over there…
Or is John McCain once again making speeches based not on his values but on what he thinks will get him elected?
When I was a kid, the I felt the worst thing my parents could say to me was,” I’m disappointed in you.” Believing that I’d let them down when they trusted me mattered more than any lecture or punishment they could give. So…
John, John, John…. I’m so disappointed in you.
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
March 1st, 2007 08:20
You can have gratitude and respect for a man who does a difficult job in service to his countrymen, even if he doesn’t do the most fantastic job we’ve dreamed of. It has to do with the office and authority the man holds, not with our love of every decision.
March 1st, 2007 09:41
I personally don’t see this as simply agreeing or disagreeing with decisions Senator McCain has made. It seems to me he has made radical shifts in his positions based on what will help him further his career. The timing is suspicious to me. Certainly, politicians are entitled to change their minds during their tenure, but only after reflection, struggle, discussion…
I respect John McCain for what he has contributed in the past. He was a real war hero and has served as senator with distinction. Now, however, I don’t think I can trust him.
For the record: I was a Bill Clinton supporter; I felt he did a lot of good for us nationally and internationally. Then his arrogance got in the way, he made a bad situation worse, and he lost my trust.
March 1st, 2007 12:12
After listening to McCain for eight years, I believe he is an opportunist in the worst sort of way. Practically all national politicians have lost my trust, because they are a) opportunistic; b) the only option; c) the least dangerous of two bad options. I am disappointed in all of them. Maybe a furlough, er “time-out” for bad behavior, would help. No dessert until you act like grown-ups and face facts. Grr.
March 1st, 2007 16:59
Except that “time outs” don’t work. And if we withhold dessert, that’s just outside pressure. Better that we make our own informed decisions and make our voices heard. Wait…that’s what we’re trying to do here. Okay. Let’s get back to work!
Julia
March 1st, 2007 18:14
LOL! Good point.
March 3rd, 2007 01:29
I’m an old-school idealist in many ways, one who still sees public service as a high calling. I expect honesty, decency and a willingness and ability to use executive or legislative power and authority to right wrongs, advance fairness and otherwise pursue helpful and worthwhile goals.
I realize politicians and appointed officials are human beings — fallible and sure to have some quirks and foibles, just as I am and as I do. So, I’m willing to allow them some slack here and there. They certainly should be able to change their mind now and then without being denigrated as wishy washy. They should be able to fluff their lines, mess up telling a joke or give out with a defiant “yeeaiii!” without being depicted as having a secret agenda, a dark, ugly side or as being a loose cannon.
I had a certain affection and admiration for McCain in 2000 and preceding years. He’s bright, usually sensiblle and decent, and very much a war hero but remarkably humble about it.
McCain was treated in 2000 to some of Karl Rove’s most mean-spirited and dirty tactics. McCain himself wasn’t the only target; his wife and child were slimed.
Another pol might’ve withheld a certain amount of support and cooperation as result of that kind of assault, but not McCain. Indeed, another senator in McCain’s situation might’ve insisted on some desperately needed oversight for Bush and his incompetent, scandal-ridden administration. McCain decided what was most important was appearing to be a loyal conservative Republican team player — with some gratuitous groveling for the Christian far-right’s benefit thrown in.
What has mystified me, though, is how even McCain could lavish so much praise on Bush and his administration at the 2004 Republican convention. He really went out of his way, really laid it on thick. It was glaringly obvious then that Bush was a raging incompetent and rapidly building a record as the worst president in U.S. history.
Based on his Senate voting record over the years, McCain is more of a traditional, true-blue conservative than Bush. Even so, Republican conservatives don’t really like or trust him, especially those of the religious right.
If McCain winds up losing the GOP nomination to Mitt Romney, or especially to Rudy Giuliani, it will be the ultimate personal irony and the most ironic of politial rebukes.
March 3rd, 2007 20:52
I agree that politicians are not allowed to be human without continual surveillance. (I’m glad my life is not monitored by 24-hour news.) I must say, I still think that Howard Dean got treated unfairly after his “yeeaii!” in Iowa. Watching the whole clip, it’s clear to me that he is attempting to bring energy and hope to some very disappointed and discouraged people. It was a rallying cry to encourage, unfortunately delivered with a hoarse voice. (It might not have been Henry V on St. Crispin’s Day, but the intent was there.) Portraying it as anything other that was manipulating the situation.
March 4th, 2007 02:51
Susan, if you saw the ABC News report on what happened to Dean, which unfortunately didn’t appear until Dean had suffered two weaks of merciless bashing, you know he didn’t even scream as loudly as it at first appeared.
The video clip shown several times an hour for more than a week on CNN, and repeatedly elsewhere, was made with a noise-canceling mike. That technology cuts out background noise, which changes the whole context.
ABC News ran another video made at the same rally that did not have noise canceling. The difference was like night and day. Without noise canceling, it was clear Dean was raising his voice over a raucous, noisy crowd of supporters. In that context, he didn”t come across as over the top. He was just being loud enough to be heard at all.
March 4th, 2007 06:48
S. W. -
I had heard about this video manipulation (just yesterday, in fact). It’s what prompted my comment. I didn’t have any details about it, so I didn’t want to mention it. Thanks for filling that in.