Private Messages Options Search Blogs Images Chat Cam Portals Calendar FAQ's Join  
Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 Asylum Forums > Políticás der Monde > More McCain
Pages (2): [1] 2 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread [new thread]    [post reply]
CHiPsJr
Ginger-headed Troll

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

More McCain

Washington Post today

The equivocations and ideological impurity inherent in the Presidential nomination process are probably too big for any one man to overcome. Mr. Smith ain't in Washington anymore. Under those circumstances, who better than a man who knows who he is, recognizes the fact, and tries to remain true to himself despite the political consequences?

I don't have a huge amount in common with John McCain ideologically. But the more I find out about him as a man, the more convinced I become that we need him as President.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-03-2006 05:33 AM
CHiPsJr is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CHiPsJr Click here to Send CHiPsJr a Private Message Find more posts by CHiPsJr Add CHiPsJr to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

Funny, the more I have learned of him and other national politicians, the more convinced I've become that we need Al Sharpton. He would, hopefully, incite a military coup and subsequent revolution.

__________________
"...the last thing somebody crippled wants is your pity—and maybe not even your sympathy—he just wants to be normal again, just like everybody else. Every gesture of caring becomes a slap in the face, a reminder that you are not well. So damn your sympathy, damn your caring, how dare you stand over me, perfect and healthy, and offer your help and your secret condescension.

" - John Varley, Steel Beach

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-03-2006 06:30 AM
SimpleSimon is offline Click Here to See the Profile for SimpleSimon Click here to Send SimpleSimon a Private Message Find more posts by SimpleSimon Add SimpleSimon to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

SLH, would you PLEASE drag some homeless guy in for Simon to hamstring? He is jonesing.

__________________
Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-03-2006 06:46 AM
Trenchant_Troll is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Trenchant_Troll Click here to Send Trenchant_Troll a Private Message Find more posts by Trenchant_Troll Add Trenchant_Troll to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

As a man, I was sold on McCain in 2000. Regardless of ideology, simply as a human being I have great trust in his inherent sense of decency, fairness, justice, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of national politicians (though I do think most of them are fine people probably). A better man we nearly couldn't ask for.

I'm a little troubled by his recent shifts--and he has shifted, in substanative ways, on more than a few issues in the last several months (Iraq, Falwell, he voted against the tax cuts before he voted for them, campaign finance reform, a few other things), and I think that's worth noting and talking about, as with the fact that he is indeed a very conservative Republican, despite his image. Neither of those things disqualify him certainly, but they're worth putting out there, and keeping an eye on. And as far as the former goes (changing positions), I'm willing to give McCain the man an awful lot of benefit of the doubt on that.

Really though, McCain might be the best kind of president--not particularly ambitious policy-wise (he has no great legislative agenda that I can see, save torture, campaign finance reform, etc), but a truly decent and honorable public servant. I can't imagine any condition that would cause me to not vote for him in the primary, and though I don't want to say I would certainly vote for him in the general, it's hard to imagine not. The real shame is that he wasn't made president in 2000. Even AT THE TIME I couldn't fathom anybody voting for Bush over him. In retrospect though, GOP voters in 2000 who took Bush over McCain---man, that sure was about the worst vote in the history of ever.

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-03-2006 07:39 AM
Paint CHiPs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

By the by, do you have some good sources on the "follow the money" thing you've referred to a couple of times regarding McCain, Jr? You keep talking about it as if it's an open and shut thing, and while I have no doubt that he's not hurting for contributions at this point, I haven't seen anything that leads me to the conclusion that he's the assumed prospective nominee from the perspective of financieers, and that party Big Wigs are financially flocking to his campaign, or that if it gets heated that'll stay constant (in the same way that Hillary Clinton is, moneywise, heads and shoulders above the rest but Warner is also showing that he's more than competitive, and when it gets down to it the money will keep her competitive but not necessarily win her the nomination). Point is, I think Allen and a few others are showing plenty of signs of life on the "follow the money" grounds already, and I haven't seen anything regarding campaign contributions that would starkly prove a decisive advantage to McCain going in, this early. Since you've referred to it a bunch, can you shoot me some links. I've been thinking about it lately.

The follow-the-money thing might have led some people to conclude that Gephardt would remain in the thick of the Democratic nomination process in 2004, also.

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-04-2006 09:43 PM
Paint CHiPs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Aydin
Rice King

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 11770

I shook Hillary's hand at the Queens Gay Parade last year.
I prefer McCain, or maybe Geena Davis.

__________________
北京欢迎你

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-04-2006 09:48 PM
Aydin is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Aydin Click here to Send Aydin a Private Message Find more posts by Aydin Add Aydin to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CHiPsJr
Ginger-headed Troll

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

The smart-donor-money candidate in 2004 was always Kerry.

As for the evidence you requested, Paint, here's one slice:

Fortunate Son
by Byron York
(New Republic 12.12.05)
t has never been entirely clear just who makes up the Republican establishment--businessmen? evangelicals? freepers?--but it is clear that they've never liked John McCain. A look at the coverage of McCain's 2000 presidential primary campaign reveals hundreds of instances in which the Arizona senator is depicted as waging heroic battle against the GOP establishment, and the establishment is depicted as fighting back just as hard, if less heroically. The establishment's efforts "to kneecap the hated McCain," wrote Joe Klein after McCain won the 2000 New Hampshire primary, "are likely to grow uglier as the South Carolina primary approaches." Indeed they did, and McCain went down.

Of course, in defeating McCain, the Republican establishment made a pretty good choice; it got a two-term presidency and all that goes along with it out of the deal. But now, as that presidency moves into lame duckhood--with no designated successor to George W. Bush--McCain is still there, and he's getting another look from some of the people who fought against him six years ago. Although, at this point, the 2008 polls reflect name recognition more than anything else, McCain is near the top of them, and he's also dominating what might be called the invisible primary of the activists and insiders who play key roles in the presidential primaries.

There are several reasons why GOP establishment types are warming to the man they once rejected--and who rejected them. First is the loyalty McCain showed toward Bush in the last election. Second is his stand on the war in Iraq. Third is his hard line on federal spending. And the fourth reason is not an issue, but the absence of one: In 2008, McCain, having won his fight for campaign finance reform, will no longer be showcasing a cause that most Democrats loved but most Republicans hated.



cCain campaigned like a workhorse for Bush in 2004, making more appearances for (and with) the president than he made for himself in his own reelection campaign. "I spent a grand total of three days in Arizona between the first of September and November," McCain tells me. "I thought it was a lot more important for him to be reelected than for me to be reelected." (That kind of it's-not-about-me humility is easier when you win, as McCain did in Arizona, with 77 percent of the vote.) McCain points out that he also campaigned for Bush in 2000 but got little credit for it, because "people wouldn't accept the fact that I had gotten over any real or imagined problems with the South Carolina primary."

But, in 2004, Republicans took notice. "People who were for George Bush in the Bush-McCain fight appreciated McCain standing up for the president," says Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. "We knew he didn't have to do it, and that will be a tremendous asset for McCain in South Carolina." Dawson makes it clear that he hasn't chosen sides and that other candidates--Senators George Allen and Bill Frist, in particular--have accumulated some significant political IOUs in South Carolina. But McCain has, at the very least, earned the credibility to go back to the state, not as a loser, but as a major contender.

More than any other issue, the war is the reason why Republicans thank McCain for standing by Bush. As the level of public approval for the war goes down, and some Republicans worry that they have to accommodate Democratic calls for withdrawal, McCain's hawkishness looks better and better to those in the GOP--still a majority--who want to stay the course. McCain is their man; he has a way of talking about the war that simply sounds right to Republican ears: stronger, clearer, and more direct than Bush himself. "We cannot afford to lose it," he tells me. "Just read Zarqawi. We lose it, and they're coming after us."

With his war hero credibility, McCain is able to dismiss the calls of some of his fellow lawmakers--and fellow veterans--who want to get out of Iraq. John Kerry, McCain says, doesn't have "the strength to see it through." And John Murtha is "a lovable guy," but "he's never been a big thinker; he's an appropriator." Using language that Bush never could, McCain tells me that Murtha has become too emotional about the human cost of the war. "As we get older, we get more sentimental," McCain says. "And [Murtha] has been very, very affected by the funerals and the families. But you cannot let that affect the way you decide policy."

A statement like that--sad, but, at the same time, coldly determined--would not be made by a man worried about how the war will affect his political fortunes. And McCain isn't. "We don't ever even talk about [the war] in political terms," McCain's longtime top strategist, John Weaver, tells me. "If John McCain and George W. Bush are the last two men standing advocating the exportation of democracy and the protection of democracy in Iraq, so be it. It's absolutely the right thing to do." There's no doubt McCain believes that, but it also happens to be, at least at this moment, the kind of buck-up certitude the Republican base, struggling with its own doubts about the war, wants to hear.

McCain is also aligned with the GOP establishment on the issue that, were it not for the war, would be the source of a bitter fight between Republicans and Bush: federal spending. In the last few years, McCain, who enjoys a longstanding reputation for opposing pork-barrel spending, voted against the exorbitant prescription-drug entitlement. He voted against the highway bill, and he was one of the noisiest opponents of its most notorious provision, Ted Stevens's Bridge to Nowhere. No other Republican candidate has a better record on the issue.

When Stephen Moore, the former head of the Club for Growth who is now with The Wall Street Journal editorial board, interviewed McCain recently, Moore couldn't find much to criticize on the question of federal expenditures. "More than any other first-tier GOP candidate in 2008, Mr. McCain has shrewdly tapped into the rage that conservatives are feeling" about big spending projects, Moore wrote. Of course, Moore couldn't abide McCain's opposition to some of the president's tax cuts, but, given the deficit, it's likely those votes will diminish in importance when compared with McCain's position on spending.

Finally, there is the issue that McCain doesn't have. In 2000, McCain based his candidacy on campaign finance reform, a cause almost entirely associated with Democrats. While that appealed to some independents, it had a pie-in-the-sky air about it that turned off Republicans, many of whom still believe Bush should have vetoed McCain-Feingold when it finally won congressional approval. And, at least in the view of the GOP establishment, it didn't work, either: McCain did all that campaigning so George Soros could spend $27 million on a personal mission to defeat Bush? That's not an accomplishment to boast about in Republican primaries.

The good news is that's over; McCain won't be making a big deal of it in the years to come. But he still wants to cast himself as a reformer. When I ask him about his inquiry into the Jack Abramoff scandal, he launches into a statement about the urgent need for lobbying reform. "We've got to reform lobbying," he says. "I don't think that would offend very many people, except those in the lobbying community." And, by the way, McCain--who, as his opponents will remind you, was once a member of the Keating Five--says he was stunned that the Abramoff mess is as bad as it is. "I had no clue that it would blossom into this," he says. "I had no clue."

In any event, McCain concedes that the reform agenda from 2000 probably won't be a major factor in 2008. "I think that the issues of national security will probably be transcendent for a long time," he says, "because I think the war on terror will be with us for a long time."

ven though McCain is in line with the Republican establishment on most of the top issues these days, there are still some instances where he might find himself on the outs with GOP primary voters. The biggest is illegal immigration. The party is split, with a lot of conservatives preferring a proposal sponsored by McCain's Republican colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, and Texas Senator John Cornyn that would require illegal immigrants who are in the United States now to go home before they can apply to come back and work. McCain has a competing bill, co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy--it is generally not a great idea for candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination to be closely identified with the senior senator from Massachusetts--which would allow those illegals to stay here during the process. With some justification, McCain's opponents call it an amnesty bill, and McCain will undoubtedly pay a political price among voters who believe the real answer to the problem is stricter border enforcement. On the other hand, no other candidate will be able to please all sides on the issue, either.

Another possible problem is the question of judicial nominations. When I speak with a Republican strategist who is allied with one of McCain's potential rivals, he says McCain threw away much of the support he had won campaigning for Bush when he joined the so-called "Gang of 14" senators who reached a compromise on Democratic filibusters of Bush appeals court nominees. "The whole issue of judicial nominations is very, very important to Republican activists and Republican primary voters," the strategist says. "I think there was a sense of betrayal among Republican activists when they saw those seven Republicans join those seven Democrats to head off the nuclear option." The strategist is right about the importance of the judges issue, but wrong about the Gang of 14 compromise. Yes, McCain and others agreed to preserve the Democrats' right to filibuster. But, in return, they forced Democrats to back down on their most hated nominees: William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen. And the GOP members reserved the right to break any future Democratic filibuster. That probably won't hurt McCain.

And, with so much of the political spotlight on national security, McCain's charisma and war record often allow him to bowl over even those Republicans who don't like all his positions. "While I disagree vehemently with him on many policy issues, it is thrilling to sit in his presence," wrote Moore. "He is a genuine American hero and patriot in an age when heroism and patriotism have gone out of style." More than any other senator, McCain seems like an executive branch leader; among the Republican field, his only real rival on that score is Rudy Giuliani.

One inside-baseball indicator of McCain's status with the Republican establishment is the fact that his campaign might--in a development that would have been unthinkable a few years ago--attract a few members of the Bush team. Media consultant Mark McKinnon, for one, leaves no doubt that he wants to work for McCain. "I consider myself a friend," McKinnon tells me. "I told the senator, as I told the president, that if anybody from the president's inner circle runs--that is, Jeb or Condi--then I would want to support them. But, if they didn't, then I would support him."

Of course, it's just 2005, and there's no way to know what issues will be most important in 2008 or whether those issues will be friendly to McCain. He's obviously betting on national security, which means a 2008 McCain campaign might look nothing like the 2000 McCain campaign. And that, for the Republican establishment at least, is a good thing. "If he comes in with the Straight Talk Express and the same stuff, I don't know if that will get him anywhere," says Dawson. "We're looking for what their vision is for America after President Bush." (Dawson apparently hasn't checked out McCain's new website, StraightTalkAmerica.com, where, among other things, supporters are invited to buy a tiny lapel pin replica of the Straight Talk Express bus. Just $25.)

Probably the biggest mistake McCain could make, after building up so much credibility with establishment types, would be to try to recapture the "maverick" image that so charmed the press (and some voters) in 2000. When I talk to yet another Republican strategist who is allied with yet another of McCain's potential rivals--nobody wants to speak openly about this yet--he tells me he'd love to see McCain thumb his nose at the party establishment again. "For his opponents, the more maverick, the better," the strategist says. "There are some folks who love the maverick, but are those folks likely to be Republican primary voters? Republican activists are looking for Republicans."

McCain seems to understand that now. But there is always the possibility that he will backslide. "I don't know of anything I have done recently that would anger the Republican base," he tells me. "But I cannot be positive that I won't think of one."

Byron York is the White House correspondent for National Review.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-05-2006 01:10 AM
CHiPsJr is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CHiPsJr Click here to Send CHiPsJr a Private Message Find more posts by CHiPsJr Add CHiPsJr to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

quote:
Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
SLH, would you PLEASE drag some homeless guy in for Simon to hamstring? He is jonesing.


It wouldn't help. I'm in Oregon, taking care of my Mom, who as of today is in the hospital. Don't know when I'll see SLH next.

__________________
"...the last thing somebody crippled wants is your pity—and maybe not even your sympathy—he just wants to be normal again, just like everybody else. Every gesture of caring becomes a slap in the face, a reminder that you are not well. So damn your sympathy, damn your caring, how dare you stand over me, perfect and healthy, and offer your help and your secret condescension.

" - John Varley, Steel Beach

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-05-2006 05:42 AM
SimpleSimon is offline Click Here to See the Profile for SimpleSimon Click here to Send SimpleSimon a Private Message Find more posts by SimpleSimon Add SimpleSimon to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CHiPsJr
Ginger-headed Troll

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

McCain at Liberty University:

quote:
Thank you, Dr. Falwell. Thank you, faculty, families and friends, and thank you Liberty University Class of 2006 for your welcome and for your kind invitation to give this year’s commencement address. I want to join in the chorus of congratulations to the Class of 2006. This is a day to bask in praise. You’ve earned it. You have succeeded in a demanding course of instruction. Life seems full of promise as is always the case when a passage in life is marked by significant accomplishment. Today, it might seem as if the world attends you.

But spare a moment for those who have truly attended you so well for so long, and whose pride in your accomplishments is even greater than your own – your parents. When the world was looking elsewhere your parents’ attention was one of life’s certainties. So, as I commend you, I offer equal praise to your parents for the sacrifices they made for you, for their confidence in you and their love. More than any other influence in your lives they have helped make you the success you are today and might become tomorrow.

Thousands of commencement addresses are given every year, many by people with greater eloquence and more original minds than I possess. And it’s difficult on such occasions to avoid resorting to clichés. So let me just say that I wish you all well. This is a wonderful time to be young. Life will offer you ways to use your education, industry and intelligence to achieve personal success in your chosen professions. And it will also offer you chances to know a far more sublime happiness by serving something greater than your self-interest. I hope you make the most of all your opportunities.

When I was in your situation, many, many years ago, an undistinguished graduate – barely – of the Naval Academy, I listened to President Eisenhower deliver the commencement address. I admired President Eisenhower greatly. But I remember little of his remarks that day, impatient as I was to enjoy the less formal celebrations of graduation, and mindful that given my class standing I would not have the privilege of shaking the President’s hand. I do recall, vaguely, that he encouraged his audience of new navy ensigns and Marine lieutenants to become “crusaders for peace.”

I became an aviator and, eventually, an instrument of war in Vietnam. I believed, as did many of my friends, we were defending the cause of a just peace. Some Americans believed we were agents of American imperialism who were not overly troubled by the many tragedies of war and the difficult moral dilemmas that constantly confront soldiers. Ours is a noisy, contentious society, and always has been, for we love our liberties much. And among those liberties we love most, particularly so when we are young, is our right to self-expression. That passion for self-expression sometimes overwhelms our civility, and our presumption that those with whom we have strong disagreements, wrong as they might be, believe that they, too, are answering the demands of their conscience.

When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It’s a pity that there wasn’t a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

It’s funny, now, how less self-assured I feel late in life than I did when I lived in perpetual springtime. Some of my critics allege that age hasn’t entirely cost me the conceits of my youth. All I can say to them is, they should have known me then, when I was brave and true and better looking than I am at present. But as the great poet, Yeats, wrote, “All that’s beautiful drifts away, like the waters.” I have lost some of the attributes that were the object of a young man’s vanity. But there have been compensations, which I have come to hold dear.

We have our disagreements, we Americans. We contend regularly and enthusiastically over many questions: over the size and purposes of our government; over the social responsibilities we accept in accord with the dictates of our conscience and our faithfulness to the God we pray to; over our role in the world and how to defend our security interests and values in places where they are threatened. These are important questions; worth arguing about. We should contend over them with one another. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, we fight among ourselves for the things we believe in. It is not just our right, but our civic and moral obligation.

Our country doesn’t depend on the heroism of every citizen. But all of us should be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf. We have to love our freedom, not just for the private opportunities it provides, but for the goodness it makes possible. We have to love it as much, even if not as heroically, as the brave Americans who defend us at the risk and often the cost of their lives. We must love it enough to argue about it, and to serve it, in whatever way our abilities permit and our conscience requires, whether it calls us to arms or to altruism or to politics.

I supported the decision to go to war in Iraq. Many Americans did not. My patriotism and my conscience required me to support it and to engage in the debate over whether and how to fight it. I stand that ground not to chase vainglorious dreams of empire; not for a noxious sense of racial superiority over a subject people; not for cheap oil; -- we could have purchased oil from the former dictator at a price far less expensive than the blood and treasure we’ve paid to secure those resources for the people of that nation; not for the allure of chauvinism, to wreak destruction in the world in order to feel superior to it; not for a foolishly romantic conception of war. I stand that ground because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my country’s interests and values required it.

War is an awful business. The lives of the nation’s finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted, economies damaged. Strategic interests shielded by years of statecraft are endangered as the demands of war and diplomacy conflict. Whether the cause was necessary or not, whether it was just or not, we should all shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. However just or false the cause, how ever proud and noble the service, it is loss – the loss of friends, the loss of innocent life, the loss of innocence -- that the veteran feels most keenly forever more. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes war.

Americans should argue about this war. It has cost the lives of nearly 2500 of the best of us. It has taken innocent life. It has imposed an enormous financial burden on our economy. At a minimum, it has complicated our ability to respond to other looming threats. Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred. But if an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition, and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility. But I ask that you consider the possibility that I, too, am trying to meet my responsibilities, to follow my conscience, to do my duty as best as I can, as God has given me light to see that duty.

Americans deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other’s respect, whether we think each other right or wrong in our views, as long as our character and our sincerity merit respect, and as long as we share, for all our differences, for all the noisy debates that enliven our politics, a mutual devotion to the sublime idea that this nation was conceived in – that freedom is the inalienable right of mankind, and in accord with the laws of nature and nature’s Creator.

We have so much more that unites us than divides us. We need only to look to the enemy who now confronts us, and the benighted ideals to which Islamic extremists pledge allegiance -- their disdain for the rights of Man, their contempt for innocent human life -- to appreciate how much unites us.

Take, for example, the awful human catastrophe under way in the Darfur region of the Sudan. If the United States and the West can be criticized for our role in this catastrophe it is because we have waited too long to intervene to protect the multitudes who are suffering, dying because of it.

Twelve years ago, we turned a blind eye to another genocide, in Rwanda. And when that reign of terror finally, mercifully exhausted itself, with over 800,000 Rwandans slaughtered, Americans, our government, and decent people everywhere in the world were shocked and ashamed of our silence and inaction, for ignoring our values, and the demands of our conscience. In shame and renewed allegiance to our ideals, we swore, not for the first time, “never again.” But never lasted only until the tragedy of Darfur.

Now, belatedly, we have recovered our moral sense of duty, and are prepared, I hope, to put an end to this genocide. Osama bin Laden and his followers, ready, as always, to sacrifice anything and anyone to their hatred of the West and our ideals, have called on Muslims to rise up against any Westerner who dares intervene to stop the genocide, even though Muslims, hundreds of thousands of Muslims, are its victims. Now that, my friends, is a difference, a cause, worth taking up arms against.

It is not a clash of civilizations. I believe, as I hope all Americans would believe, that no matter where people live, no matter their history or religious beliefs or the size of their GDP, all people share the desire to be free; to make by their own choices and industry better lives for themselves and their children. Human rights exist above the state and beyond history – they are God-given. They cannot be rescinded by one government any more than they can be granted by another. They inhabit the human heart, and from there, though they may be abridged, they can never be wrenched.

This is a clash of ideals, a profound and terrible clash of ideals. It is a fight between right and wrong. Relativism has no place in this confrontation. We’re not defending an idea that every human being should eat corn flakes, play baseball or watch MTV. We’re not insisting that all societies be governed by a bicameral legislature and a term-limited chief executive. We are insisting that all people have a right to be free, and that right is not subject to the whims and interests and authority of another person, government or culture. Relativism, in this contest, is most certainly not a sign of our humility or ecumenism; it is a mask for arrogance and selfishness. It is, and I mean this sincerely and with all humility, not worthy of us. We are a better people than that.

We are not a perfect nation. Our history has had its moments of shame and profound regret. But what we have achieved in our brief history is irrefutable proof that a nation conceived in liberty will prove stronger, more decent and more enduring than any nation ordered to exalt the few at the expense of the many or made from a common race or culture or to preserve traditions that have no greater attribute than longevity.

As blessed as we are, no nation complacent in its greatness can long sustain it. We, too, must prove, as those who came before us proved, that a people free to act in their own interests, will perceive those interests in an enlightened way, will live as one nation, in a kinship of ideals, and make of our power and wealth a civilization for the ages, a civilization in which all people share in the promise and responsibilities of freedom.

Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the ideals that protect them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to the world. Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.

All lives are a struggle against selfishness. All my life I’ve stood a little apart from institutions I willingly joined. It just felt natural to me. But if my life had shared no common purpose, it would not have amounted to much more than eccentricity. There is no honor or happiness in just being strong enough to be left alone. I have spent nearly fifty years in the service of this country and its ideals. I have made many mistakes, and I have many regrets. But I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I wasn’t grateful for the privilege. That’s the benefit of service to a country that is an idea and a cause, a righteous idea and cause. America and her ideals helped spare me from the weaknesses in my own character. And I cannot forget it.

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest attainment, and all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did my church, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn’t understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.

In that confrontation, I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, they gave me a larger sense of myself than I had before. And I am a better man for it. I discovered that nothing in life is more liberating than to fight for a cause that encompasses you but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.

Let us argue with each other then. By all means, let us argue. Our differences are not petty, they often involve cherished beliefs, and represent our best judgment about what is right for our country and humanity. Let us defend those beliefs. Let’s do so sincerely and strenuously. It is our right and duty to do so. And let’s not be too dismayed with the tenor and passion of our arguments, even when they wound us. We have fought among ourselves before in our history, over big things and small, with worse vitriol and bitterness than we experience today.

Let us exercise our responsibilities as free people. But let us remember, we are not enemies. We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals. It should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. I have not always heeded this injunction myself, and I regret it very much.

I had a friend once, who, a long time ago, in the passions and resentments of a tumultuous era in our history, I might have considered my enemy. He had come once to the capitol of the country that held me prisoner, that deprived me and my dearest friends of our most basic rights, and that murdered some of us. He came to that place to denounce our country’s involvement in the war that had led us there. His speech was broadcast into our cells. I thought it a grievous wrong then, and I still do.

A few years later, he had moved temporarily to a kibbutz in Israel. He was there during the Yom Kippur War, when he witnessed the support America provided our beleaguered ally. He saw the huge cargo planes bearing the insignia of the United States Air Force rushing emergency supplies into that country. And he had an epiphany. He had believed America had made a tragic mistake by going to Vietnam, and he still did. He had seen what he believed were his country’s faults, and he still saw them. But he realized he had let his criticism temporarily blind him to his country’s generosity and the goodness that most Americans possess, and he regretted his failing deeply. When he returned to his country he became prominent in Democratic Party politics, and helped elect Bill Clinton President of the United States. He still criticized his government when he thought it wrong, but he never again lost sight of all that unites us.

We met some years later. He approached me and asked to apologize for the mistake he believed he had made as a young man. Many years had passed since then, and I bore little animosity for anyone because of what they had done or not done during the Vietnam War. It was an easy thing to accept such a decent act, and we moved beyond our old grievance.

We worked together in an organization dedicated to promoting human rights in the country where he and I had once come for different reasons. I came to admire him for his generosity, his passion for his ideals, for the largeness of his heart, and I realized he had not been my enemy, but my countryman . . . my countryman . . . and later my friend. His friendship honored me. We disagreed over much. Our politics were often opposed, and we argued those disagreements. But we worked together for our shared ideals. We were not always in the right, but we weren’t always in the wrong either, and we defended our beliefs as we had each been given the wisdom to defend them.

David remained my countryman and my friend, until the day of his death, at the age of forty-seven, when he left a loving wife and three beautiful children, and legions of friends behind him. His country was a better place for his service to her, and I had become a better man for my friendship with him. God bless him.

And may God bless you, Class of 2006. The world does indeed await you, and humanity is impatient for your service. Take good care of that responsibility. Everything depends upon it.

And thank you, very much, for the privilege of sharing this great occasion with you.


How do you persuade people? Not by smacking them in the mouth, but by framing your preferences in terms of the listener's desired goal and values. Here is a man who can walk into a group of radical religious conservatives, demand more tolerance of them, and garner a standing ovation for it.

He should be President, you know.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-13-2006 10:26 PM
CHiPsJr is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CHiPsJr Click here to Send CHiPsJr a Private Message Find more posts by CHiPsJr Add CHiPsJr to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Yeah. I'm pretty much ready to stake my endorsement on him, as weighty and valued as that surely is. The man needs to be president.

A reader from Sully, that I like because it kind of also summarizes why my reservations about McCain really aren't reservations so much as theoretical nitpicks:

quote:

The people bashing you for what you've written about McCain are wrong to suggest that McCain will turn out to be another Bush.

I have a lot of problems with Bush, and I'm a liberal. But they're not problems that are rooted in his conservatism. I'm on the left, but if a conservative wins, then those are the rules, that's the outcome, and I can live with it. I believe in democracy.
My problems with Bush come from his contempt for our system and our values. He's a guy who looks for reasons to torture people, and for legal excuses to cover him after he does. He doesn't believe in checks and balances, or in any restraints on executive power. He doesn't think search warrants or judicial supervision is a good thing. He doesn't think Congress should have any role in oversight.

Those aren't conservative postions. They don't really have much connection to anything in the American political tradition. They express a kind of ignorance of, or perhaps even a contempt for, what's made this country great.

McCain is a conservative, and in normal times, I'd oppose him. To give you an example of a policy on which I disagree strongly with him, I'd toss out the recent bankruptcy law. I think that was terrible, that it hurts working poor people. McCain was a big supporter of it. I don't have any illusions about him on those kinds of issues.

But I believe that McCain believes the same sorts of things about the way our government should be structured that most everyone else does. I think he understands the roles of the various branches. I don't think we'd have the torture, or the signing statements, or the warrantless surveillance under McCain.

Bushism has inflicted terrible damage. It's eaten away at many of our core institutions and our core values. And that has to be put right. If our next president continues on as Bush has, it becomes bigger than one man, or one administration. It becomes the new status quo.

I would love to see a Democrat win. Or rather, I would love to see a Democrat who is good enough to win. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think the GOP primary will decide who our next president is. And as far as I'm concerned, McCain is the pick of the litter. Not because he agrees with me on any of the issues that are normally in play; he doesn't. But because he seems honest and competent, and because he seems to understand the difference between right and wrong. He seems to understand the things in the Federalist papers - how the various branches of the government are supposed to fit together.

We have to be realistic about where we are. A president who won't torture people would be a big improvement. I don't need a president who will implement European-style social-democratic policies. I'd like to see that, but it's not going to happen.

I just want a President who will follow the law.


In some ways that's pretty sad, but that doesn't stop it from being right.

McCain 08!!!

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-15-2006 04:45 AM
Paint CHiPs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Democrats in Every Other Race 06 07 and 08!!!

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-15-2006 04:46 AM
Paint CHiPs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CHiPsJr
Ginger-headed Troll

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

A divided government, with Democrats running one or both houses of Congress and McCain in the White House, might well produce some of those same budgetary benefits we experienced during the Clinton administration. It's a possibility we've discussed on this board before.

The problem is that McCain may not be the best guy for that particular purpose; his "national greatness" conservatism can involve some pretty substantial spending on some pretty silly things. Maybe the Dems can keep him from sending people to Mars and carving faces in mountainsides.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-15-2006 03:30 PM
CHiPsJr is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CHiPsJr Click here to Send CHiPsJr a Private Message Find more posts by CHiPsJr Add CHiPsJr to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

McCain's tour of capitulation and prostration now includes going mealy-mouthed on presidential signing statements, which McCain had some choice words about last year that he's now backing way off from. The same question of constitutionality that nulled probably McCain's most important legislative accomplishment in his career.

Political manuevering is one thing, particularly where it just concerns empty rhetoric (things where it doesn't really matter if you say one thing or another); backing off on some of the most important issues of the day, where his mere vocality on them could be critical, is another kind of animal. McCain sounds like he's becoming committed to being a Specter instead of a....well, a McCain.

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-27-2006 03:41 PM
Paint CHiPs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Talarohk
The Pedanticator

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5073

I love...LOVE...that speech. If the man would hold firm on things like signing statements, I'd vote for him over almost any Democrat (save maybe Feingold). As it is, I'll be very interested to see his campaign.

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-27-2006 05:28 PM
Talarohk is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Talarohk Click here to Send Talarohk a Private Message Visit Talarohk's homepage! Find more posts by Talarohk Add Talarohk to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Sully:

quote:


Whopper of the Day

27 Jul 2006 03:03 pm

"The Prime Minister of Iraq and others have condemned Hezbollah and say they do not support them," - senator John McCain, yesterday.

He's beginning to sounds as detached from reality as the president is. There are also ominous signs that he may agree to the administration's position that their new military tribunals - which will allow for "coercive interrogation" - conform to Geneva Article 3. They don't. Are we witnessing the selling of McCain's soul for power? We can only pray we aren't. He's one of our last best hopes for the next presidency.

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-27-2006 08:26 PM
Paint CHiPs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
BROKEN_LADDER
A DINGO ATE MY ZOGBY

Registered: Mar 2005
L