I don't care who wrote it or to what end, but that's friggin hilarious and dead-on target.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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.
Much less an Al Jazeera article by an author who cites "David Corn" as a reliable authority on anything but beastiality. McCain is no arch conservative, but this is pure pus.
;-\
I’ll take John McCain over anything that the left has to offer any day. Say what you will, but he served his country and lived through hell. I can name at least 20 Senators currently serving that are much, much worse and never bothered to serve (or lied about where they served). Say what you will, but he did what his country asked him to do and didn’t wimp out. It has been time for him to go, but that’s up to AZ and apparently they like him.
Many on FR seem to increasingly believe only sources on “our” side should be posted.
This makes criticism much easier. You don’t have to point out a factual or logical flaw in the article itself, only that it is from the “wrong” side.
This is beginning to get ridiculous. If we only listen to each other, we can never learn much, and most especially we won’t become familiar with the arguments of the other side and therefore be able to more effectively refute them.
It is also an argument more widely associated with leftists. No need to refute the actual argument of a “right-winger.” Just pronounce him to be such and therefore both evil and wrong, and move on. Showed him!
I’ve even had posters claim a reference from wikipedia or Snopes is by definition unacceptable, since some material from those sites is indeed infected with liberalism. They generally don’t bother to post a more authoritative source as a refutation, just assume wiki is wrong and therefore they can continue to believe as they choose without any need to prove their point.
I will cheerfully agreed wikipedia should never be accepted as a final authority, especially on anything involving politics, but it does contain a great deal of good material and is often an excellent starting point for research.
he spent $21million to beat a flawed primary candidate who had about 10% of his war chest
McCain is a Scottish name, not Irish. And the so-called Scots-Irish were Scottish people who moved to Ireland and then to the U.S. But they fight, too. More, probably.
About the author:
Cliff Schecter is the President of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.
It looks like the writer is just a progressive writer who's work might be picked up by various publications - not a staff writer for Al Jazeera. I expect this article could be found elsewhere.
Sounds like ‘08 was really a lose-lose proposition....
A man of principle, he's not afraid to take tough positions, and he doesn't shy away from a fight. He's not worried about what's popular or partisan or personally advantageous. He's guided only by a desire to do what's right for the people he serves and the country he loves.
"I admired his tireless crusade against the old pork-barrel-spending, earmarking, backroom-dealing ways of D.C. that make a whole lot of us pretty ill," she said. "Today, those issues are at the heart of a conservative movement that's sweeping this country."It's a beautiful grass-roots movement that's putting government back on the side of the people. . . . It's the tea-party movement, and I want to clear the air right now. Everybody supporting John McCain here today, we are all part of that movement."
“As we traveled across the country, I got to know John McCain personally,” Palin wrote. “He's a man of faith, a man of honor and — most of all — a man of the people. He's deeply devoted to his state; the patriotic, hard-working Arizonans who call it home; and the founding principles they hold dear.”
“one of the finest public servants in this country.”
“Many on FR seem to increasingly believe only sources on “our” side should be posted.”
Worse, if you point out errors of fact, logic, or civility from one of “our” sources, you’re suddenly the “enemy yourself, to be zotted.
Do we have a policy to follow when posting obvious propaganda from Al Jazeera?
Seems when we use our enemy’s ally to smear our own “enemy”, something is awry.
Please advise.
Thank you.
What's the difference....???
Let's let FReeper's decide what's propaganda...or not, eh?
Of course, the Scots themselves were originally an Irish tribe that invaded and settled in what later became Scotland.
I don't care who wrote it or to what end, but that's friggin hilarious and dead-on target.
I feel sorry for his wife, but she chose him..
right...I figured that out.
so we have a progressive writer who strikes a chord with our enemies at AL Jazeera. and why would we want to have anything to do with either of these defilers of America
Bump! Completely agree Sherman!
Pure horsecrap, given that McCain has also expressed willingness to work with Obama. One can find plenty of reasons to rip into McCain without making up speculative claims that are a line drawn from a single starting point - and such a line can be drawn in any direction.
But don't let the facts get in the way of opinions of David Corn ... or Paultards who hate McCain mostly for being pro-Iraq-War.
Try reading it without your eyes glazed over in Paultard glee. You might spot a few glaring variances from the truth if you did.
But, then again, you show a history of not being discriminating about where you post from - as long as you like the conclusions drawn, you don't care how they got there.
I think I'm missing something. When did someone logically show where the article was factually incorrect? Or even logically refute the opinion of the author?
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.