McCain considered benchmarks in January 2007
posted at 10:55 pm on January 30, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
During the Reagan Library debate, Sen. John McCain spent several minutes attacking Gov. Mitt Romney for allegedly supporting timetables and benchmarks on progress in Iraq. I’ve already taken that attack apart here and Jay has the original GMA clip here. But the facts are not only inconvenient to McCain on what Romney said. They’re inconvenient on what McCain himself said. He considered supporting timetables himself in January 2007. The Arizona Star has the story.
Read it and weep, John McCain.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.
Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain’s thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.
McCain said Thursday that he hadn’t yet decided on precise benchmarks. “They’d have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them,” he said.
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: “I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options.”
That suggests withdrawal. The story goes on to say:
McCain in no way is withdrawing his backing for the war or President Bush’s plan to add 21,500 troops. It was unclear what consequences or timetables McCain would spell out, or whether he believes that Congress has the authority to enforce them.
Still, several Senate Democrats who oppose the troop buildup and also may seek the presidency said they were struck by McCain’s comments.
“We Catholics call that an epiphany,” said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., who is sponsoring the main Democratic resolution opposing the troop buildup.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: “I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I’m glad that John McCain agrees with me.”
So other than being for the surge earlier than Romney, who supported it himself the day it was announced, McCain’s position on timetables is less clear but certainly not obviously stronger than Romney’s. How will Mr. Straight Talk spin his way out of this one?
(h/t Ace)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Good “Got Cha”!
MsDollie on January 30, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I fear the narrative has been written and attention spans are short. He won’t have to.
Nosferightu on January 30, 2008 at 10:59 PM
WOW…..speechless…now it’s Romney’s turn to “bring this up 3 days” before Super Tuesday
Rush impersonating McCain: “SHUT UP, just everybody SHUT UP!! You’re going to ruin this for me!! SHUT UP!!!”
LordMaximus on January 30, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Thank you, Brian!!! God save us from John McCain.
centralcal on January 30, 2008 at 10:59 PM
He may not have to. If the MSM doesn’t bring it up and Mitt doesn’t call him on it in some form or fashion, then it doesn’t exist.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I just donated to Romney. Every one who wants him to fight the good fight should contribute tonight, no matter how small, just to show support for what he is doing and to encourage him to wipe the smug look off McCains face.
Go Mitt! Never McCain!
ctmom on January 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM
He’ll remind us that he was a POW war hero. That should take care of it. Oh, and he’ll preface it with, “My friends”.
a capella on January 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM
i hope somebody shoves this crap right down his throat - however, i don’t think it will happen. the mccain train has left the station, and i now believe the nomination is his.
darkegop on January 30, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Now,, the question is,,, WWRD (what will Romney do?)
JellyToast on January 30, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Who cares? McCain is a war hero.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM
In my dreams:
Spolitics on January 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM
For what its worth, unlike Romney, McCain never said the word “Timetables”.
Complete7 on January 30, 2008 at 11:06 PM
I can’t wait!
MsDollie on January 30, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I was an admirer of Mitt’s campaign but I’m left wondering what they’re going to do to stop McCain’s momentum.
Normally, I wouldn’t say this when conservatives run against conservatives. To me however, it’s past time to go “nuclear” on Maverick.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Are you paying attention RWS and all other ole ‘Cain shills?
Naaaww of course not… the facts are stubborn things.. so are you…. you will just be a statistic pretty soon anyway. So keep on being stubborn, it makes you feel good.
CHEERS. It saves on other stimulants.
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq,
For which we appreciate him.
said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.
What was that you were hounding Romney about again? I seem to forget. Benchmarks was it?
Tony737 on January 30, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Geez, man! Someone in the comments here pointed out McCain’s Jan. 2007 benchmark resolution last Friday when he first floated this turd of an attack.
Cuffy Meigs on January 30, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Well, that certainly lets him off the hook. The whole context changes dramatically, doesn’t it?.
a capella on January 30, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Since the campaigns began, I said I would begrudgingly vote for McCain if he was nominated. I was even a bit of a McCain apologist.
That changed three days before the Florida primary.
If you want to lie about your own record, fine. But when you smear a Republican who, despite his faults, is honestly trying to fly the conservative flag, you lose my vote, no matter the circumstances.
I cannot forgive what he did to Romney. I just can’t.
John McCain can kiss my —.
locke on January 30, 2008 at 11:10 PM
mccain is as low a lowlife as kerry.
he will never get my vote.
nor the gop a penny if he leads the ticket.
if he’s on the ticket then the race is lib v lib.
i don’t care which lying lib scumbag is elected: they won’t have my vote.
ever.
reliapundit on January 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM
The pot calling the kettle black, and I don’t like Romney at all. Matter of fact, I don’t like any of the 3 candidates left. LETS PLEASE RECRUIT GEORGE ALLEN TO COME TO MINNEAPOLIS AND WIN A BROKERED CONVENTION!
Dhornertx on January 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Mitt should stop trying to explain this issue. He’s letting McCain get him off message. He should just say it’s a lie and move on. His strong point is the economy. He needs to stay on message.
Spolitics on January 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM
DING,DING,DING DING!
We haver a stubborn mind numb robot, here!
Cheers! A statistic in the making.
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Romney DID say he would pull out of Iraq
Mitt for withdrawl
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Right, but nobody’s picking up on it. Kudos to Bryan for trotting it out again to see if this can grow some wings post-debate.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Yup. And I was just reminded of that thread again by Amos’s recycled Mitt quote above. He used it on that thread as well.
Cuffy Meigs on January 30, 2008 at 11:15 PM
And we all know that “timetables” was the buzzword to avoid. Evidently “benchmarks” are A-OK.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: “I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I’m glad that John McCain agrees with me.”
This is another reason why McCain vs. Obamillary is a contest between two Dems.
McCain/Kennedy. McCain/Feingold.
McCain is the guy the Dems want us to nominate, he’s the guy the media wants us to nominate. What else do we need?
Tony737 on January 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Again I will state I have LESS of a problem with Mitt’s Iraq stance then Mitt’s vision on how to fight the WOT by economic means
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Dude. You tried peddling this garbage a couple of days ago. I’ve already shown that it’s a truncated quote.
If you going to shill, at least try and demonstrate a little integrity.
p.s. How do you think McCain did in the debate tonight?
Spolitics on January 30, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Facts are a b*tch, aren’t they John?
eanax on January 30, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Give it a rest William. We already went through this in great detail with you a few days ago and it was unanimous that you were being a “jerk” (to quote McCain)
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 11:19 PM
McCain sucks, his war hero story wore out a long time ago. He brags about being a patriot yet has an agent of a foreign government working in his campaign. His amnesty plan would destroy this country. I just donated some money to Mitt. I would rather run Mitt and lose than win with McLAME.
echosyst on January 30, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Which was discredited, as I recall.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 11:20 PM
From the article:
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 30, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Im being a “jerk” for bringing up a policy position of a Major candidate for the office of the Presidency ?
The Mitt people sound more and more like the Ron Paul people every day.
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
romney has always been a conservative.
jummy on January 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
When the Iraq War was looking coffin nail, Mccain was for benchmarks because he was looking forward to his presidential run. When the surge started working and it’s no longer the albatross it once was, he all of sudden became the mastermind behind it and the sole cause of it’s success (according to him).
p0s3r on January 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
You left out a relevant paragraph, Bill.
McCain is basically trying to hang a Democrat position on Romney. It’s dishonest. Everybody, and I do mean everybody, figures that we’ll get out of Iraq at some point. The question is when and how. Romney has been pretty consistent that we shouldn’t get out before the job is done, and that story you linked doesn’t prove otherwise. In the clip he explicitly rejects getting out too quickly because it would cause chaos. So that story and clip don’t help you if your aim is to damage Romney on this issue.
Bryan on January 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Hardly it was peddled that Mitt wants to declare “Victory” when he never once used that word
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Which of Mitt’s stances do you agree with? Decide quick, they are about to change again.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Uh, Iraq was a mess. September 3rd, IIRC, is before Petraeus even testified in front of Congress.
Secretary of Defense Gates is now saying all provinces may be under Iraqi control by the end of the year and U.S. troops will be in a support roll.
amerpundit on January 30, 2008 at 11:22 PM
How do you think McCain did tonight? I thought he was terrible, but I’m not impartial. I’m curious what his supporters thought?
Spolitics on January 30, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Mitt should have been all over this…..
Too slow, no outrage.
McFlip is disingenuous in the extreme.
I am dumbfounded how foolish the party is in buying all his crap.
Starlink on January 30, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Has he ? I missed that. Go to his site bryan and tell me that later. He in fact states that the WOT is to be fought WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/confronting-radical-jihad
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Isn’t it obvious?
Mitt was horrible as we have seen from all the negative topics started toward mccain, since the debate..
McCain, will be the nominee.
Chakra Hammer on January 30, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I’ve never donated money to anyone in a primary campaign before, but I’m gonna leave a nice check for Mitt in my mailbox tomorrow morning.
RW Wacko on January 30, 2008 at 11:26 PM
You’re being a jerk for pretending beyond all reason that that statement was an indication that Mitt wanted to haul ass out of Iraq.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I thought Mitt won and Im not a McCain support Im stuck with him now.
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:27 PM
He’ll simply lie through his teeth about it, just like he has on several other issues and about Mitt’s record. And his defenders will take deeply personal umbrage at you for even bringing this up.
St. John can do no wrong, and how dare you question him. You must be suffering from MDS.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 11:27 PM
McCain & Clinton both = “Fire in the Belly”.
Either will do ANYTHING to be POTUS.
MsDollie on January 30, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Again all I need is a straight answer from Mitt on this question and I will be satisifed. I still dont have that.
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Cherry-pick much? Mitt’s approach is multi-faceted and includes military force. This is not your typical war.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Mitt talks about “special forces” that would be called in by Muslim countries to strike Jihadists. I wont hold my breath for that.
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Guess you missed the part about NATO and using recruits from Army Special Forces, huh?
Stop the cherrypicking, Bill. You’re wasting everyone’s time with that.
Bryan on January 30, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Sounds like you want a timetable. How does 100 years sound?
Good night.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I just Donated to the Romney Campaign. Something I said I’d never do. ) I just need to do something so I can honestly say I did SOMETHING to try to stop McCain.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 30, 2008 at 11:31 PM
You hit the nail on the head on that one!
Starlink on January 30, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Did you watch the debate tonight? Man, I’m glad I don’t have to deal with people like you in real life…I’d bang my head against the wall!
‘I believe we need to stay until we achieve victory?’
‘Uh, yeah, but what is victory, what he is really trying to say is defeat.’
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Like I said. I thought he was horrible. He mumbled and came off as smarmy. When he was asked about the economy he talked about his experience as a POW. He seemed so off base that he lent himself to charges of senility.
To answer my question about how McCain did by saying Mitt was terrible suggests it was obvious McCain crashed and burned.
Spolitics on January 30, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Read some more bryan
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:33 PM
This is true and it is a real problem for our election process. If they want power badly enough and will do anything to get it, they can win. If not, then we think they don’t have “fire in the belly”.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Well said. I hadn’t quit thought of it that way, but I stopped and read that twice. Well said.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Stop distorting peoples’ positions. Of course we need to work with law enforcement from other countries! you think we shouldn’t. How do you break up small terror cells in other countries, like say Germany? Send in Delta Force? Mitt understand the threat and does not back away from the possibility of military engagement, in the VERY statement you quote from on his webpage. You forgot to mention where he actually does talk about Delta and Seal, etc, SPF….
Mitt more than anyone has been drilling home the point that radical Islamism is a dire threat to our survival. He has his weaknesses, but this isn’t one of them.
And yes, I like McCain on WOT, too.
RW Wacko on January 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM
I will can can this be applied in Pakistan or Saudi arab places where terrorists are being trained ?
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Man, that debate was like Telefon with Charles Bronson.
Utter “timetable” and McCain freakin’ snaps.
Cuffy Meigs on January 30, 2008 at 11:35 PM
In all honesty isnt this what clinton did in the 1990s ?
William Amos on January 30, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Say it with me… “multi-faceted”. Shows some creativity, don’t you think?
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Yeah. That’s basically the COIN strategy that Petraeus is using in Iraq. It’s not all about Strykers and bombers, and it’s certainly not all about putting X number of boots on the ground. That’s what the troops in Baghdad were concerned about — that we were just going to add troops without a clear strategy to use them effectively.
Most of COIN is about mundane meetings over school lunches while some local guy in the corner tells your intel specialists where the bad guys are holed up. It’s about training up local cops and troops to be clean and help enforce the law without sectarian partiality. I saw that sort of thing with my own eyes a year ago. It’s the strategy that’s turning Iraq around, and Romney’s co-opting it. I don’t see the problem with that.
Bryan on January 30, 2008 at 11:40 PM
McP3wnd.
What sound does a weasel make when its paw is caught in its own trap?
profitsbeard on January 30, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Just donated to Mitt.
Afraid he won’t have a chance, but McFlip and Billary will demagogue like crazy and do nothing of substance.
McCain’s solution for the economy and foreign policy is …..”I was a squadron leader….”
Starlink on January 30, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Somewhere along the path,an anchorette babe is
going to ask McCain a question and MCain is going
to turn into LT.Cmdr.Philip Francis Queeg,from
the movie “Caine Mutiny”! And then get to a safe distance!
Hehe.
canopfor on January 30, 2008 at 11:42 PM
It would be great to bring all the troops home from the entire world ASAP. And peace would break out all over no doubt. Puppies and bunnies would frolic in the meadows of the DMZ. Iran and the Sunni jihadis will help Iraq make a transition to democracy once the Americans leave.
I’m not even sure it’s possible, democracy in three old vilayets of the calaphate separated by sect and ethnicity, and I’m sure far less money has bankrupted empires, but leaving Iraq to descend back into complete chaos and bloodshed isn’t the sort of “change” Iraqis are looking for.
Beagle on January 30, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Really? Clinton did a lot of things, but effectively fighting Islamofascism wasn’t one of them. His approach was one of law enforcement only, and lax enforcement at that.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 11:44 PM
No, when Clinton (and Kerry in ‘04) said it had to be treated as a law enforcement issue, the suggestion there was — you wait for the terrorists to do something, then you investigate, arrest, and prosecute. They seemed to be arguing for no military involvement whatsoever. That’s not to say the strategy should be military only. Not even our generals advocate that.
Spolitics on January 30, 2008 at 11:45 PM
You trivialize your site with such a strained and lame gotcha based on a stray article whose content half-supports the point your appear to be trying to making, but has nothing at all to do with the point McCain has been making.
If you really want to do some research on this trivial side issue, you’ll very likely find McCain’s contemporaneous clarifications of these misinterpreted remarks - or do you really believe that he was on the same side as Obama and Biden?
He used the word “benchmark” in reference to the policy. Of course he did: That was administration policy, too - stated and re-stated again. The pseudo-controversy today is only partly over Romney’s use of the word “timetable” (not “benchmark”), and anyway the whole thing isn’t about whether or not Romney, McCain, or anyone else EVER used the words or supported some variation of requiring specific behaviors of the Iraqi government. That goes without saying, and pretending anything other is jejune. It’s even stupider than the insistence in these parts that McCain is a “liar” because he once used the word “amnesty” vaguely in another context than the one under which it became controversial.
What’s meaningful is whether Romney was a trimmer or instead stood up to be counted. All the rest is complete BS - the kind of thing that fanatics and losers stay up late arguing about, but that has near zero effect on politics or the world.
CK MacLeod on January 30, 2008 at 11:46 PM
And only when caught with his cigar in the …
I’m going to wash my mind out with soap.
Goodnight!
MsDollie on January 30, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Oh, I agree that it’s a contrived controversy. We just disagree over who contrived it.
As for amnesty, McCain used the word “never.” As in he “never” supported amnesty. But he did, as has been proven. He called it that by name. All he had to say was “I once supported amnesty but I don’t now because the people don’t want it” and he’d deflate the issue. But he can’t do that. He has to call his critics liars instead, when they have the better of the argument because he did use the word to describe the thing that he says he “never” supported. Why?
Bryan on January 30, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Sometimes terror is law enforcement because they won’t let the Air Force use JDAMs on residential subdivisions in New York or Miami. Bunch of pansies.
Beagle on January 30, 2008 at 11:51 PM
CK MacLeod-
Keep spinning.
This tidbit is an arrow from McVain’s cheap, prevaricating bow boomeranging into his own butt.
profitsbeard on January 30, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Donated to Mitt a little while ago. Need to bolster his war chest and feel good about myself that I at least in some small way tried to stop McCain.
cjs1943 on January 30, 2008 at 11:57 PM
God bless the blogosphere and the internet!
SouthernGent on January 30, 2008 at 11:57 PM
McCain was the one who made it about “buzz words.” If it was about standing up to be counted, that should have been his point. But McCain went after Mitt for his use of “buzz words.” Bryan was just applying the same standard to McCain. I think we all would have preferred it to be about the underlying issue. Too bad McCain made it about word games.
Spolitics on January 30, 2008 at 11:57 PM
I guess McCain forgot to check the “six” of his past. Irony can be sooooo nice at times.
steveegg on January 30, 2008 at 11:57 PM
I hope there is another debate and Mitt just keeps on jerking McCain’s chain. Get the guy p.o.’d and watch McCain go ballistic. He will have his Dean moment.
cjs1943 on January 31, 2008 at 12:02 AM
The one thing that would have ended this controversy before it blew up? If Romney could point to a single moment during the real fight that he stood up and put himself and his political viability at risk. Chirping occasional supportive statements on request doesn’t count. Having said the right words once or twice - or having refrained from saying the wrong ones - doesn’t do it. He was trimming all along. Everyone who was watching closely knows it. Everyone also knows that if the policy had gone badly, he’d have been mining the same history for “proof” that he had kept his distance and sober judgment - and his main opponent wouldn’t be McCain.
CK MacLeod on January 31, 2008 at 12:06 AM
It isn’t a gotcha until someone gets it into the public arena. I blame Fox et al for not hammering that lying sack of crap for his hypocrisies.
csdeven on January 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM
and I agree about it in Iraq. I also said that Iraq is not the whole WOT and there are other fronts.
But again I do question the economic aspect of Romney’s plan. Why do we need to help “
William Amos on January 31, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Hint: Straight Talk won’t be involved. But you knew that.
Making a big issue of what a “Straight Talker” you are is just a giveaway that you’re a big fat liar, John. Just like the dirtiest, sleaziest, most shameless used car salesman in my hometown billed himself as “Honest P—”.
ReubenJCogburn on January 31, 2008 at 12:10 AM
He said he would veto any bill that called for a timetable to withdraw. That’s not prevaricating. That’s a clear, straight answer.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Romney’s team ought to air that quote over and over and over and over. And finish the commercial with a picture of Ted and Obama holding hands.
BacaDog on January 31, 2008 at 12:13 AM
OK I will take it that Romney is saying “wait and see” and that Romney will fight Islamofacism. Its seems vague but there is elements there. AS for Iraq again I feel that it would be stronger to go all out to say “Our Military is killing Al Qaeda butt and we will keep chasing them”
I think my uneasiness is due to Mitt’s more policy wonk talk that I am misreading. Again he said he wanted to “Double Gitmo” which I also took as “We want to arrest more Al Qaeda’ Romney’s plan can work its just a smaller scale of fighting. BTW has Romney said he wants Osama dead or alive ?
Its real easy to read more than one message in romney speak.
William Amos on January 31, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Amnesty - timetable - liar…
When you get engaged, things get messy. Words start slipping around, and a certain kind of trimmer gets very skilled prying one word out of one context and banging it against another pried from a different context. It’s one of the lamest and most infuriating of all political exercises. The only good thing is that most of the time, it doesn’t matter. The losers get to think they were robbed, like fans who think the refs fixed the game.
Sure, McCain “started it” - and you can win the argument that way if you want to sort it out like six-year-olds. He’s nowhere near as adept verbally as Romney. (I could imagine Bill Clinton and Romney debating about absolutely nothing for hours on end.) It’s sad, it’s a weakness, it sometimes makes McCain look bad, and, like a lot of people of his type, he overcompensates and looks worse, and it may hurt him against the Dems.
Politically, his point remains uncontradicted, because it’s 100% accurate. It wasn’t even the wrong strategy for Mitt: He never had a chance competing with McCain for credibility as a war president (or even as a conservative). Them’s the breaks.
CK MacLeod on January 31, 2008 at 12:19 AM
I understand misgivings with him. Truly I do. We don’t have a perfect candidate. I just don’t think McCain’s treatment of him on the timetable/benchmark issue was fair at all. It showed a side of McCain that won’t help him if he’s the nominee.
Bryan on January 31, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Yeah I can see that being true. McCain does have problems with dealing with conservatives. He takes those as badges of honor when its simply just political rhetoric. Honor is about standing up for things greater than yourself rather than self serving things. McCain does confuse what is and isnt important at times. But unilke the Clintons he doesnt do it on purpose as a matter of manipulation. I guess it comes with being a politician.
Personally Id love to ask McCain and Mitt questions. Or even let Michelle do it. Would be fun to watch so if you and Michelle go to Cpac take a camera !
William Amos on January 31, 2008 at 12:24 AM
BTW will add an antidotal story that shows how people think.
I was considering studying Political sceince in college and did so for a year. When I told my mother I wanted to get into politics she said to me “Why do you want to be a criminal ?”
I was taken aback by what she said till I realized she wasnt calling me a criminal but rather she veiwed politicians as being crooked.
The real moral of that story is doesnt matter how noble and righeous you are when you go into politics a large segment of people already consider you crooked simply because too many politicians have spoken with forked tongues. I guess its wrong of me to want absolutes when no one is capible of giving them.
William Amos on January 31, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »