McCain-the maverick that never was


The number of liberals who appear stunned to discover that John McCain is a right wing hypocrite and not a pillar of integrity is truly amazing.

Today at Truthout, William Rivers Pitt recounts McCain's recent dissolution as a viable national candidate, but includes this in his piece:

Once upon a time, John McCain was a man who commanded and deserved great respect. Beyond the awe-inspiring courage and strength that marked his Vietnam service was the integrity he displayed, for the most part, in his political life. While his conservative views did not jibe with many, there was something about his conduct in office, his independence of thought within the rigid confines of his party, that made Americans stand up and take notice. Even the scandals involving him, most notably the embarrassing Keating Five debacle, did not permanently tarnish his image.

I have nothing to say about his Vietnam experience. Let's stipulate that it was all anyone could ask. It is, nonetheless a fact, that a person can display great physical courage and be entirely lacking in moral courage. Even if we also stipulate for the moment that McCain was a paragon of virtue at some point, in the last few years he had demonstrated beyond doubt that the ability to withstand physical torture (at least for a while) does not translate into the ability to withstand political pressure or the dark side of one's own ambition.

But, in fact, there is little, if anything about McCain's political career that would lead one to the conclusion that he has ever had more integrity than the run of the mill Republican politician-which is to say, not much. He first made news as a member of the Keating Five, only to resurrect himself as a presidential contender in 2000, where he saw that his best chance at beating the establishment candidate was by portraying himself as somehow different. Easier done than said, given the willingness of the press to swallow his malarky whole.

It was to his political advantage then to take on the Republican insiders (Falwell, Roberts, et. al.) that were backing Bush. If he ran a less dirty campaign than Bush it was only because he hadn't yet been properly schooled. He has no intention of making that mistake again, since he's currently stocking up on the scum of the Republican party (that's very scummy by the way), the most recent addition to his stable being a fellow who "counted Jews" for Richard Nixon. If he had any real objection to these people, he wouldn't hire them.

It comes down to this-just because you say you talk straight, doesn't mean that you do. In fact, only in politics (and maybe only in American politics) is anyone willing to believe that a person who constantly trumpets his own integrity is likely to have much of that quality. Other than proclaim his own un-forked tongue in 2000, what did McCain ever do before that year to earn a reputation for integrity or independent thinking, not to mention independent doing? After 2000, with a higher national profile, he had a habit of maverick talking and herdlike voting. There are a large number of otherwise fairly intelligent people who have a habit of projecting their own beliefs on to certain political figures. The 1992 (or was it 96) boomlet for Colin Powell is a good example. Lot's of people preferred to believe he was on their side, when they had no idea where he stood on anything. There are elements of this tendency in the Obama candidacy.

Fundamentally, people don't change all that much, particularly when they are in their 60s. If John McCain had more regard for principles in 2000 than he did for his own ambition, then he would be able to keep that ambition in check today. He can't, as his shameless courting of the very people that smeared him in 2000 demonstrates.

Today, by the way, we hear from 60 minutes, that McCain is sorry he "misspoke" about his recent trip to Iraq:

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he misspoke in comments he made about security in Baghdad and acknowledged that heavily armed troops and helicopter gunships accompanied him when he visited a market there. McCain tells this to Scott Pelley in his first interview since the visit for a 60 MINUTES report that will include the only video camera footage of McCain’s market visit, to be broadcast Sunday, April 8 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT).

In two interviews before the Army took McCain and 60 MINUTES on the heavily guarded visit to the al-Shorja market last Sunday, the senator said security had improved in Iraq. Upon his return, he also told a news conference he had just come back from a neighborhood one could walk around in freely. The remarks made headlines and he now regrets saying them. “Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future,” says McCain. “I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that’s just life,” he tells Pelley, adding, “I’m happy, frankly, with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun.”

My little computer dictionary contains two definitions for "misspeak". The first ( To speak or pronounce incorrectly) doesn't seem to apply at all. The second ( To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly. ) is only marginally more helpful, since it implies carelessness at worst. McCain went for a walk in a market guarded by over 100 soldiers, three helicopters, and an unknown number of snipers. After that walk he and his partner in crime said it was like any outdoor market in America. That is calculated dishonesty, the very opposite of rashness. It was also incredibly stupid (McCain can't believe he doesn't have the press permanently snookered), but that's another story.
Posted: Friday - April 06, 2007 at 06:41 PM          

©