Posted on 12/30/2010 9:39:59 AM PST by rabscuttle385
What does he want? Revenge. For what? Being born.
This is the way famous gunslinger Doc Holliday answers equally famous lawman and good friend Wyatt Earp’s inquiry - in their depiction in the movie Tombstone - into why their sworn enemy, Johnny Ringo, is such a misanthrope.
Sadly, this description would be equally accurate in explaining the actions of another Arizona transplant filled with endless rage: Senator John McCain.
I first encountered the seething side of McCain when I was writing my 2008 book, The Real McCain, which was critical of him while pointing out a then-controversial fact, one no longer in dispute among those who lionised him back then. Namely, that the Led Zeppelin-groupie relationship he then enjoyed with many in the media was based on a faulty premise.
John McCain was not a maverick (which he has since admitted after long identifying with the title), but a man driven by a need to fight. To fight for his own redemption, to fight with those who dared disagree with him, and most particularly, to fight with anyone who had delivered him a perceived humiliation of any sort. Think Yosemite Sam on a bender, or Vladamir Putin in those half-naked martial arts pictures.
Sure, McCain was also motivated by the very same political expediency which drives too many politicos, as well as coveting an appearance on the Sunday morning talk circuit the way a twenty-something blonde does meeting Edward Pattinson, or marrying Hugh Hefner.
But the driving force for McCain has been pure vitriol and spite. When I first pointed out this inconvenient truth in my book, that many Republicans, including some willing to go on the record, were sure McCain was motivated by demons and not decency, I was criticised or dismissed in many quarters. Yet, it was obvious to me back then that his battles with fellow Republicans and Democrats had become personal, crusades for the eternally perturbed Abe Simpson stand-in.
I broke two stories in my book that spoke to McCain’s temperament, that he had physically assaulted a member of his own party after taunting him (Republican Representative Rick Renzi) and had called his wife a very not-safe-for-work term of non-endearment. In perhaps an emblematic McCain moment, during a policy meeting with a fellow Republican, McCain “called the guy a ‘sh—head.’ The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologise, but you’re still a sh—head.’”
There’s a reason the dude was nicknamed “McNasty” in high school.
So when others still saw McCain’s breaking from President Bush on taxes, healthcare, the environment and gun control in the early 2000s as a sign of “independence,” I tried to point out what I had learned: He was just doing it because he hated Bush for beating him in the primaries. And when others saw his loss to then-Senator Barack Obama and thought he’d work with Obama to display his maverickyness once Obama was sworn in, I warned that in all likelihood we’d see McCain once again do his best Judge Elihu Smails impression.
But even I couldn’t have expected how truly ridiculous he’s become. As Deputy Political Director Michael McMurray of NBC News pointed out in a tweet just before Christmas that outside of Afghanistan, “the AZ senator didn't support any major Obama WH policy in '09-'10.” In fact, it has been much worse than that.
Bush’s tax cuts for top earners, immigration reform, a nuclear arms treaty and even a military suicide prevention bill were not worthy of McCain’s support during the last two weeks. Not supporting a bill to prevent military suicides? Really? It’s almost like this particular Scrooge got a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Crazy while napping after an especially large portion of Quaker Oats.
As journalist David Corn recently pointed out, looking at McCain’s increasingly desperate attacks against repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of allowing gays to serve in the military only if they were as vocal as a Buddhist Monk about who they really were, “…McCain practically threw a tantrum on the Senate floor, decrying ‘this bizarro world’ and denouncing senators in favour of repeal…Looking as if steam would shoot out of his ears at any moment, McCain went on to exclaim that ending DADT would endanger ’the survival of our young men and women in the military.’"
Of course, as Corn also wrote, “Not only had McCain flip-flopped, he had become an angry crusader, seemingly full of rage at a policy initiative he once quasi-endorsed…It seemed more personal than policy -- as in he really doesn't fancy seeing a victory for President Obama, the fellow who prevented McCain from becoming BMOC.”
That is really the gist of it, and it’s at the heart of who McCain has been his entire time in Washington, whether most journalists have been willing to see it or not. He’s not a statesman, nor has he ever been. He’s a petulant bomb thrower. He’s Simon Cowell in a suit.
In fact, in a slightly alternative universe, it wouldn’t really be all that hard to imagine McCain standing on a Times Square street corner screaming at passersby that they all deserve to go to hell, or challenging random strangers to a fight to the death using sticks to determine who gets his clay marble collection.
But in this one, he was just elected to another 6-year Senate term. And that tells you a helluva lot about the predicament in which we currently find ourselves as a nation.
See my post 38. IMO the libtard wrote this, al Jazerra ran it and rabs posted it because they all despise McCain’s stance on the Iraq War - about the only good thing he has done over the last ten years. There are plenty of good reason to rip into McCain over his deviation from conservative values without listening to the antiwar wingnuts.
And beyond that, the article got after McCain for changing his stance on DADT. For whatever reasons, he went to the right side of this issue - and AFTER he had won re-election (and not needing to worry about re-election for six years) - so in this case rabs is revelling in liberals attacking McCain for not carrying water for the Democrats this time.
Thank you.
A simple support repeal / oppose repeal will suffice.
It's more than that. McCain 2006 on DADT, McCain 2010.
McCain is so used to sitting on 2 chairs, that he has no ability to pick just one.
Excellent points.
Another example is the rabid cheering section for Sarah. I like Sarah, I've liked her since before she was nominated for veep. But some act like she's the Second Coming of Christ, and any criticism, no matter how mild, is heresy.
I’m confused. When did it become FR’s practice to not post anything with which we disagree?
It always seemed to me this was one of the primary advantages of the site, being able to post articles that the posters could then rip to shreds by using logic and facts.
Doesn’t that function pretty much disappear if we only post articles with which we agree?
The problem is, Rabs doesn't disagree with it - he has a long history of posting attacks on those he disagrees with from liberal sites - even as he often supports candidates (such as Libertarian Nolan from AZ) who runs counter to conservative positions on issues such as Iraq and the border fence.
And here he is posting from a liberal pundit who is bashing McCain for opposing DADT. I don't find it constructive to bash someone no matter what they do - and there are plenty of legitimate conservative reasons to bash McCain without bashing him when he is actually on the right side of the issue as he was recently with DADT.
So he came around to the ride side now. Let's join the liberals in bashing him for it.
Really constructive.
Are you suggesting we should think that's normal posting behavior on FR?
OK, now I’m even more confused. You apparently now object not that the article was posted, but rather to the freeper who posted it.
You may be surprised by this, but I seldom look at who posted the article when I read it and (perhaps) respond. What difference does it make who posted it? The article says what it says regardless.
Has libertarianism been expelled from FR when I wasn’t looking? I disagree with much libertarian doctrine, but I’m more than willing to have them as allies on the points on which we agree. Does it make good sense to reject potential allies because we don’t agree with them on everything? If you do so, aren’t you going to wind up with a very small coalition?
One can object to both. I already stated a factual flaw in the article. And I asked the poster of this article if he agreed or disgreed with the repeal of DADT. So far, silence - hardly a surprise.
Has libertarianism been expelled from FR when I wasn’t looking? I disagree with much libertarian doctrine, but I’m more than willing to have them as allies on the points on which we agree.
Try large 'L' Libertarian dogma such as gay 'rights' and open borders and opposition to the Iraq War and get back to me. The Libertarians have steadily moved away from a lot of conservative positions over the years, and about the only overlap is on fiscal issues.
Does it make good sense to reject potential allies because we don’t agree with them on everything? If you do so, aren’t you going to wind up with a very small coalition?
I have no problem with honest differences being hashed out to work out some common ground. But the poster of this article is anything but honest - as an example, he bashed McCain for border issues while supporting David Nolan, who compared the border fence to the Berlin Wall.
Instead of criticizing the author, why not point out where he is wrong?
I’ve been listening to a Tom Sowell book in the car, and he talks about this exact tactic, except he ascribes it to pointy-headed intellectuals as a “non-argument argument.”
Instead of disagreeing with the author by pointing out factual or logical flaws or inaccuraces in his work, attack the author personally so that anything he writes should be automatically considered invalid. For discerning people, the main conclusion you can draw about those who use this tactic is that they are unable to debate substantively.
Let’s assume we all agree Hitler was an evil person. That does not in and of itself invalidate any of the positions he held or arguments he made. Hitler was opposed to smoking. That he was evil and wrong on many (most) subjects doesn’t make his arguments against smoking invalid.
I have no problem with pointing out the background of the author and source. This is valuable information for those reading the thread.
What I find odd is the notion that certain sources and authors should not be posted at all.
Surely those reading the thread, if provided with information about the source, can form their own opinions about the degree of credibility to give it?
See post 38 for an example of a core false premise to the article.
And beyond that, there is a specific premise and an underlying premise here. The specific is McCain opposing DADT now when he supported it in the past. Given that McCain migrated to the right side of this issue, that is hardly grounds to support what is being said about him here. And the underlying issue is ongoing liberal (and Paultard) antipathy towards McCain's support of the surge. We know both parties opposed the Iraq War, whereas most conservatives supported it.
So as much as I dislike McCain, I'm not gonna silently agree to the line of attack here. I will stick to critiques of McCain when he actually deviates from conservative positions.
About as common as hen's teeth.
Tis why the tactic is ubiquitous, unfortunately.
Thomas Sowell wasn't speaking about this kind of total aberration and you know it.
I'm sorry, you don't read the devil to understand what's true. If you can't figure out that this post is aberrant and silly, good luck to you.
FR has several blocked sources.
Surely those reading the thread, if provided with information about the source, can form their own opinions about the degree of credibility to give it?
It's a matter of degree - I don't see any reason for FR to provide a platform for blatant liberal or jihadist sides.
Oh No! You got outed as a newbie!
I can’t read your posts anymore. You have been judged and found unworthy!
/sarc
Oh no!
The Scots are really Irish!?
Put ‘em up! Put ‘em uuuup!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.