Comments on: Darth VaderMcCain

By: MSS

MSS — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:34:59 +0000

one of the great political tragedies of the last 2 decades.

Are you serious? Seems a tad hyperbolic. I say that as someone who was impressed by McCain in 2000 (but not anymore!).

I am not sure if he was really serious about the presidency in 2000, or was just positioning himself for more influence in the Senate and as a counterweight to the Christian dominionists in his own party. He was running that presidential campaign against his own party, which is not a particularly effective way to capture the nomination. Now he is doing what he has to do if he is serious about the presidency: running with his party. What that might say about his “principles” I don’t know. He is an ambitious politician. Surprise, surprise.

He has fallen well behind Giuliani in polling, but that may or may not mean anything at this point.

By: jjc

jjc — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:49:40 +0000

McCain’s embrace of Bush in the ’04 campaign was simply disgraceful. Period. Everything since has been merely the denouement of that ghastly betrayal of everything he had ever stood for.

I’ve read that Kerry offered him the VP slot. McCain’s position on Iraq was closer to Bush’s than Kerry’s from a superficial standpoint, but he had to know that Bush was fundamentally unserious, in keeping with Bush’s quasi-military macho posturing. He had to know that Iraq would keep getting worse under Bush.

I think Kerry was wrong to offer the VP to McCain and McCain was right to turn it down. But he could have sat the election out in deference to his true comrade in arms.

Frankly, I don’t see McCain’s decline as a tragedy, in the sense that he engineered it himself. I always thought he was overrated, as pols who court the media usually are. What’s wrong with McCain goes far towards explaining what’s gone wrong with the media.

By: kritter

kritter — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:32:54 +0000

I might add to my previous comment that by demanding a high standard of personal behavior and core beliefs that match the ideology of both fiscal and social conservatives, many key qualifications may be missed. You might get someone like George Bush who may have gotten the blessing of conservatives before the election, but who has turned out to be a poor communicator, a poor policy maker and a poor administrator in office.

By: Cjordan

Cjordan — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:30:03 +0000

I read the Esquire article about Hagel. Hagel’s brother Tom says Mccain has given in to his ambition. I think that’s absolutely true.

Its the saddest thing I’ve seen in a while. Its tragic. I hope Hagel runs, because he will force a serious discussion about the management of Iraq.

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:06:17 +0000

I must agree. As a democrat I would not have minded the McCain of years ago who was more fun, open minded and a bit of a rebel. This McCain I don’t like. He sold his soul to Rove and Bush in a desparate attempt for the White House. Both McCain and Hillary share the same problem. They are so greedy for this that they would sell their souls and prinicipals and ideas, everything for the goal. When you lose yourself for that you end up finding it is not worth it because of the fact that you sold your self respect in the process and that is what leaves you a shell.

By: kritter

kritter — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:22:10 +0000

I agree MvdG- McCain has sacrificed his erstwhile principles to blinding ambition. Its a shame, because by giving up his true beliefs forpresidential power, it now looks like he will end up with neither. He would have been better off running as who he really is.

There is a bit of blame to attach to the Republican establishment, however. By insisting on a candidate who perfectly fits the conservative ideology, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In the modern world, there are few viable candidates who genuinely have adapted conservatism’s core beliefs, and have few personal failings. If the GOP makes the mistake of insisting on this standard, they may end up with an ideologically pure candidate who fares poorly in the general election.

Insisting on a rigid litmus test limits the GOP to a poor slate of candidates to choose from and forces viable candidates to forgo their integrity, as they are forced to either adopt an artificial personna or give up on their party’s nomination.