I started this thread two years ago when it was becoming apparent that McCain was beginning to seriously undermine those characteristics - honesty, integrity, principle, ideological independence - which made him an attractive politician and presidential candidate.
How bad has all this gotten?
Quote:Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban
Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, containing a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that establishes one interrogation standard, requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and banning waterboarding.
Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45.
Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding:
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted "no" on Wednesday afternoon.
The New York Times Times notes that "the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it ?'would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.'"
After Bush vetoes the bill, McCain will again be confronted with a vote to either stand with President Bush or stand against torture. He indicated with his vote today where he will come down on that issue.
John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/
Hmmm, I may need to reread this thread. I originally sort of liked McCain.. followed by losing it for McCain. It would be only theoretical for me to toy with voting Republican, but given choices in working with people, even having non party folk in some administration positions, I had been interested in McCain in time past.
Osso
Me too. I've always granted this man a lot of respect. A couple of years past, I recall arguing with georgeob about the fellow and I was more laudatory than george. Today...not so much.
My point of view has apparently changed dramatically in the past two years.
I don't remember writing any of those posts near the beginning of this thread.
Very interesting.
ebrown
Looking back definitely has its risks.
blatham wrote:I started this thread two years ago when it was becoming apparent that McCain was beginning to seriously undermine those characteristics - honesty, integrity, principle, ideological independence - which made him an attractive politician and presidential candidate.
How bad has all this gotten?
Quote:Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban
Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, containing a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that establishes one interrogation standard, requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and banning waterboarding.
Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45.
Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding:
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted "no" on Wednesday afternoon.
The New York Times Times notes that "the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it ?'would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.'"
After Bush vetoes the bill, McCain will again be confronted with a vote to either stand with President Bush or stand against torture. He indicated with his vote today where he will come down on that issue.
John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/
But then Hillary didn't have time to cast a vote one way or the other.
Yes. But now her family has a big plate of cookies they otherwise wouldn't have had.
blatham wrote:ebrown said
Quote:I don't think Obama has a chance either in the general election or in the primaries.
I think you are dead wrong. When the McCain/Obama spat took place last week, both Matthews and Blitzer referred to Obama as the Dem's "golden boy". That sort of unique and notable characterization has followed him, and grown, since his speech at the convention. And for very good reasons.
We can't discuss Obama's potential without reference to his race. And we don't want to ignore it anyway. A black President would be a social achievement even greater than a female President.
But aside from that worthy end, there is the reality of how he would mobilize the black community in America to work for him and to get out and vote for him. He would not be beatable (because of that black base, plus the white folks like me who respect his abilities, and dem voters in general).
And then, we might be looking at a Rice vs Obama run. Wouldn't that be something.
Why do you hold this opinion?
It's
unique for two liberal commentators to refer to Obama as "The Golden Boy" in conjunction with a "spat" with a Republican?
I just realized the post I responded to was some two years old.
An interesting look into the past.
It does change the perspective, doesn't it?
I'm too lazy to google-archive instances of "golden boy" being used to describe a Dem presidential candidate but could reasonable guess that Bobby Kennedy be the last instance.
I recall the spat quite clearly (though can't recall precisely what it was about). It really came out of the blue and nobody could quite figure out why McCain was as upset as his outburst suggested. It was over in a couple of days with both men saying nice things.
Quote:Last week, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill ?- which contained a provision banning waterboarding ?- to the floor for a vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an outspoken waterboarding critic, voted against the bill.
At the time, ThinkProgress questioned whether McCain would stand with Bush's threatened veto of the legislation. Today, the AP reports that McCain has come out saying Bush should veto the measure, which would make the Army Field Manual the standard for CIA interrogations.
Talking to reporters today, McCain attempted to defend his stance:
"I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture. "I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," McCain said.
"So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate" international rules against torture.
But the vote was not "in keeping" with McCain's unclear record on torture; in the past, McCain called waterboarding a "terrible and odious practice" that "should never be condoned in the U.S."
McCain is trying to have it both ways. He claims the CIA should not use "cruel" or "unusual" interrogations, but he is defending Bush's veto, a clear approval of waterboarding.
Furthermore, what are these "additional techniques" outside the Field Manual that McCain thinks the CIA needs? Marty Lederman noted that the CIA can currently use "stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation."
A veto would mean the "CIA will continue to assert the right to use all of these techniques." In standing with Bush's veto, does McCain, a former prisoner of war, support these types of harsh interrogations, too?
Links for statements and facts at the addmittedly liberal
source
Hagee, in NYT Sunday, Says McCain Sought His Endorsement
Hagee, in 'NYT' This Sunday, Says McCain Sought His Endorsement
By Greg Mitchell
Published: March 20, 2008 5:35 PM ET
In an interview that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, controversial televangelist Rev. John Hagee declares, "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."
McCain has attempted to distance himself from some of Hagee's views, much as Barack Obama is doing in relation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But unlike McCain, Obama has not stood on stage with Wright and accepted his accolades this year.
Interviewed by Deborah Solomon, Hagee refused to discuss his statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans, calling it "so far off-base." He claims, "Our church is not hard against the gay people. Our church teaches what the bible teaches, that it is not a righteous lifestyle. But of course we must love even sinners."
He also said that charges that he had bashed the Catholic Church ("false cult system," etc.) have been "grossly mischaracterized....I was referring to those Christians who ignore the Gospels."
Asked what he thinks of Obama, he answers, "He is going to be difficult to beat, because the man is a master of communication. If he were in the ministry, he would make it in the major leagues overnight."
He also denies that he is a strong supporter of Israel because of any coming "Rapture" in the holy land.
Well, goodness. The fellow has done himself in.
@blatham,
Really and truly. My regard for him is nearly rock bottom. Quite a long drop.
@FreeDuck,
Verily precipitous, Freeduck.
How is it possible for a politician to be in freefall for so long and still hold on to any believers?
