Newsweek's Thomas on "dispirited" McCain: "[I]t may be because he is not, at heart, a politician. He is a warrior"
In the cover story for the May 14 edition of Newsweek, assistant managing editor Evan Thomas wrote about Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "dramatic profile in courage," noting that McCain "is not the front runner in fund-raising or in national polls. And he has seemed strangely dispirited along the way, more petulant than determined in last week's first Republican debate." According to Thomas: "That may be because he senses that his unflagging support for a highly unpopular war in Iraq could end his political career, but it may be because he is not, at heart, a politician. He is a warrior."
Thomas' characterization of McCain echoed other media outlets that have attributed McCain's comparatively lackluster fundraising totals to his "dislike" of fundraising, suggesting that he is unique in that regard. As Media Matters for America noted, on-screen text during the March 28 edition of MSNBC News Live asked: "How will McCain's dislike of fundraising affect his campaign?" On the April 25 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, former McCain campaign manager Mike Murphy claimed that McCain "doesn't particularly like beating contributors out of money," adding: "And I think that's one reason he has some trouble. In some ways, I think that's a compliment to him." Murphy's comments drew no challenge from host Steve Inskeep.
From the May 14 edition of Newsweek:
By far the most dramatic profile in courage belongs to John McCain. As a prisoner of war in Hanoi, he was offered an early release by the North Vietnamese because his father was the commander of American forces in the Pacific. McCain chose to stay in prison-and endure torture and privation for another five years. Running for president in 2000, McCain was a refreshing and rare politician who was willing to talk on the record for hours to reporters riding the "Straight Talk Express." Because McCain himself has suffered and endured for his country, he has more moral standing to ask for sacrifice than other politicians.
But for many months, McCain has appeared to cater to the Republican establishment, hoping to inherit the Bush fund-raising apparatus and placate conservatives who do not trust him on issues of taxes and immigration. His efforts have not paid off: he is not the front runner in fund-raising or in national polls. And he has seemed strangely dispirited along the way, more petulant than determined in last week's first Republican debate. That may be because he senses that his unflagging support for a highly unpopular war in Iraq could end his political career, but it may be because he is not, at heart, a politician. He is a warrior.
I'm not defending Newsweak in the least, but, in a sense, you DO have to be a warrior to be a competent politician in this climate of media lap-dogging and viciuos attacks (from the right-wing smear machinafesto)...
Like him or not, for any politician to be as vocally supportive of this war as McCain is, and unlike most politically savvy candidates who realize it probably is political suicide to take the position McCain has.....On that note alone, I would say he is a warrior first, politician second.
Well, he could certainly be figuring the political calculus differently, as there will be no one who could take the "tough on terror" mantle from him in this election. But we'd both be mind-reading to impute motives behind McCain's actions.
Looking at the way McCain treated the man who tried to call him a lunatic with a n----r baby back in 2000, it's hard for me to think of him as anything other than a politician.
becoming dumbaya's lapdog certainly does taint his 'warrior' credentials...
He certainly surrendered that time. And blew it. His time has passed.
So, you're admitting that supporting the war (we like to call it what it is: an occupation) in Iraq is political suicide? Then why doesn't the present administration do the opposite and begin the withdrawal of troops to concentrate more on combating terrorism?
I beg you differ: Supporting this war isn't "political suicide" it's more like straddling the fence — at this point support/disapproval for the war can go either way. Political suicide would be along the lines of calling for the attack and occupation of Iraq, Syria or Sudia Arabia. On the other side, political suicide could be characterizd by pulling of all funds immediately from the troops in Iraq.
"Then why doesn't the present administration do the opposite and begin the withdrawal of troops"
Because they want to do what's right, not what's popular. They don't care if withdrawing troops is the popular thing to do or not. They simply want to do what's right and not what's politically expedient. Doing the politically expedient thing would be rooting for us to lose the war like Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership does on a regular basis.
So they decided to do what THEY think is right, for them that is, and stick with the Lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. The point being they stick stubbornly with the policy no matter how many die, till Chimpy is out of office, then when Dems do what THEY think is right and bring our guys home they can start rewriting history and say, see we were just about to win in Iraq and the Dems cut and run. The cynical Bush administration is doing what they think is best for THEM they couldnt care less about how many Americans have to die as long as THEY can make themselves look good.
OK. Spell it out for us. How do we not lose?
And none of this "stay the course" or "stand down when they stand up' crap.
Check the talking points at the door.
When will WE start to sacrifice for this war?
When will the draft be re-instated?
How can this thing be won militarily?
Why can't it be settled diplomatically?
Your side has had everything they've wanted for more than four years. All that I see for our nations effort is misery for the Iraqis and a lifetime of physical and emotional problems for those we've sent to fight in our name.
If your side does indeed support the troops. How about limiting tours? Why do the same people go back for a second, third and sometimes fourth tour?
We who are against this war should demand that it end, NOW.
You who support this war should demand that the draft be re-instated with no deferments, NOW.
You should demand that the tax cuts for the wealthiest be rescinded until all of our men and women have returned to their families.
It's time for everyone to be honest.
Sounds like talking points to me.
:-)
Yes. In stark contrast to Rino Hunter's post.
Point. 8)
Because they want to do what's right?
You have got to be shi**ing me!
Doing what's right would be to TELL THE TRUTH!!!
How about this:
American people I HAVE MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE. This is a Pandora's box that I have opened in the Middle East and fear that it will continue to be in grave turmoil. We have lost over 3,300 young Americans and have gravely injured over 24,000 more. I don't have an answer as to how we get out of this mess but I'm WILLING TO LISTEN AND REALLY TAKE ADVISE FROM PEOPLE WITH MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN MYSELF. I AM SORRY FOR THE LOSS LIVES AND RESOURCES. YES, because of my inexperience in foreign matters and inability to listen to others with much more experience I have failed the soldiers and this nation. I AM SORRY
Enough, "stay the course" and "the surge". IT IS NOT WORKING! How many more lives are you willing to risk? If the average loss of American life each month is 80 to 100 in September 2007 you will have added 900 more name to the Iraq/Afghanistan War Memorial and they are already running out of room. They have approx. 150 spaces left now. Iraq's will continue to fight each other whether we are there or not just like the Israel/Palestinians continue to fight. We are the problem and US soldiers cannot and are not the solution.
Rino I disagree completly
What Harry Reid said, that caught so much attention by the media is to an extent true. Since the U.S. invaded Iraq we have made the Middle East even more unstable than it was in the past. Since you believe that we can be victorious, when will the war be over? When thier is no longer another living Iraqi? We spent billions of dollars, and more importantly thousands of human lives on fighting this "War on Terror" and yet we have not seen any significant POSITIVE change. In fact the exact opposite occured. The Iraqis hate us MORE than they did before the invasion! This war has no purpose, I hate to say this, but our brave men and women are dying for no reason!!!
BGC wrote:
What Harry Reid said, that caught so much attention by the media is to an extent true. Since the U.S. invaded Iraq we have made the Middle East even more unstable than it was in the past.
----------
Why do you say that? Which parts of the Middle East are more unstable?
BGC wrote:
We spent billions of dollars, and more importantly thousands of human lives on fighting this "War on Terror" and yet we have not seen any significant POSITIVE change.
--------------
Why do you say that? What about Lebanon and Libya to mention two countries. What about the removal of Saddam? Was that not a positive? What about the lack of terrorist attacks in the U.S.?
BGC wrote: In fact the exact opposite occured. The Iraqis hate us MORE than they did before the invasion!
------------
Where do you get your information regarding that? Those polls that say Iraqi's want us to leave? Do you think there might be some 'influence peddling' going on with those? Do you think all polls coming out of Iraq are reliable? What about polls in the U.S.? As an aside, should wars be waged or abandonded by popular opinion?
BGC wrote: This war has no purpose, I hate to say this, but our brave men and women are dying for no reason!!
--------
You are entitled to your opinion. However I think that is a very sad commentary on the sacrifices made by our heroic men and women.
Okay, so Saddam is gone... and that has caused what? The Iraqis are stiff f*cked up. Even more are dying. And your questioning the polls is ridicullus. Even if they were unreliable, what cuases you to think the Iraqis are happy with what you've accomplished? If I were one of them, I'd be pretty pissed.
Oops, I meant "still f*cked up"
and you have no basis for saying that polls are unreliable.
What evidence do you have that the region is more stable? Iran lacks someone to keep them in check (they want trouble with the US, so Saddam was better for that purpose, also more likely to go to war). Iran can now send people through Iraq to Syria and on to Lebanon, as the borders are no longer secure. Al Quaeda is now in Iraq. Afghanistan has fewer coalition troops than it needs. Bin Laden escaped. All of that due to operation "Mine's as Long as Daddy's" Iraqi Freedom.
Why do you say that? Which parts of the Middle East are more unstable?
Um... ALL OF THEM? With Saddam gone, the predicted vacuum has appeared right in the middle of that region. It has empowered a whack-job in Iran to start rattling his saber, and proved to all that if you don't want to be invaded, you'd better get yourself some nuclear weapons.
Lebanon and Libya
Libya had everything to gain by going the route they did. That was in the works from before the launch of Operation Iraqi Liberation.
As for Lebanon, how exactly has their situation improved? An emboldened Israel, urged on by our "Bring It On" President, trashed that country, yet the infiltration of Hezbollah continues.
As an aside, should wars be waged or abandonded by popular opinion?
Yes. We registered that opinion in November 2006 at the ballot boxes. Remember those? You know, voting. Conservatives used to point at the re-election of Bush as proof that the country wanted to continue on his warpath. November 2006 demonstrated that we don't wanna no more.
"As an aside, should wars be waged or abandonded by popular opinion"
That's utterly ridiculous. If we fought or got out of wars based on popular opinion, we would have lost just about every war that we have ever been a part of, starting with the war which made us free: The Revolutionary War. Popular opinion should have absolutely NO affect on foreign policy decisions. But the scary thing is that if we had a Democratic President, our foreign policy probably would be conducted simply by popular opinion. These weak kneed liberals simply want to do the politically expedient thing at the expense of our national security. If we left Iraq all at once, we would leave behind a breeding ground for terrorists that would be very similar to Afghanistan before 9-11 occured. We would leave the terrorists in control of Iraq's oil resources, and they would have a huge amount of funding to grow their network. You can make the argument that it was a bad idea to go in there in the first place, but now that we're there, we can't abandon what we've started and and essentially create a safe haven for terrorists.
A safer haven than it is now...?
I defy you to prove the unpopularity of the revolutionary war. WWII was popular. WWI was made to look popular so money could be made. Vietnam was justly hated. Gulf War One was popular. Kosovo was hated by cons...
So, let's say public opinion is no good, why do you want democracy. Dictatorship is ideal if you can find the infallible leader, which is not possible. It's better to keep power from those who might abuse it than to give it to the right people, who are impossible to accurately identify anyhow. Go to China, why dontcha. Democracy--love it or leave it!
Now, repeat after me:
Two plus two is five!
Napoleon's always right!
I like Koolaid light!
Ooh, I made an awesome haiku!
8) ;) :D ;D :p
These weak kneed liberals simply want to do the politically expedient thing at the expense of our national security.
You of course can't offer any proof that our national security is threatened by anything going on in Iraq.
If we left Iraq all at once, we would leave behind a breeding ground for terrorists that would be very similar to Afghanistan before 9-11 occured.
Thank your glorious President for that. He should have stayed out of there in the first place. But nobody is saying we shouldn't pursue terrorists where ever they are. We can continue to do that -- and probably more effectively without most of our troops tied down in the middle of a civil war -- after we leave Iraq.
We're not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We're fighting an insurgency, and fighting on neither side in a civil war, and all it's doing is getting American men and women killed.
We would leave the terrorists in control of Iraq's oil resources, and they would have a huge amount of funding to grow their network.
You're calling Iraqi's terrorists? If so, what are we doing there if we're not killing each and every one of them?
AA, I was more or less talking specifically about our situation in Iraq. I don't believe ALL the middle east has become less stable because of our invasion, just specific areas. Secondly, you stated that overthrowing the brutal regime of Saddam was a victory for Iraq; you are correct that he was an evil man, but NOT a threat to the United States(thier is no LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE OF WMD). Saddam is no worse a dictator than many of OUR ALLIES, so the argument that we went to Iraq to "liberate the people" is absurd. You also stated that we haven't had another terrorist attack, but how do you know this is because of Iraq? MANY reports have come out that shown the majority of Iraqis captured or killed by the U.S. are not TERRORISTS, but INSURGENTS. Lastly, if our leadership(Bush and Co) were REALLY interested in national security, why have they not called for our borders, ports, and nuclear facilities to be better protected? Even prominent conservatives( Pat Buchanon, Bill O'Reilly, etc) have been calling for better border security. The truth is simple, terrorism is an idea, and cannot be killed; instead America needs to persuade young moderate muslims to ally us instead of the terrorists. Torturing muslims in secret prisons, burning mosques to the ground, and mocking the muslim culture, are all things that are making more and more muslims hate us...
Oh Another American in response to the last bit...
"You know whats worse than soldiers dying in vein? More soldiers dying in vein" -Mike Gravel
(P.S.= I had a nice chat, we may disagree but it was fun regardless...)
"when will the war be over"
There will probably be violence in the region for years to come, but we can't begin pulling out until the Iraqi army if fully prepared to take over the misssion. We're still in the process of training them, and hopefully they'll stand up and fight sooner rather than later. But we can't pull out of the region until the Iraqis are ready to stand up themselves.
Sooo, the truth rears it's ugly head. If we pull out now, the turrists will get the oil. Say it again, THEY will control all the oil. THAT is the real basis for all this madness. O-I-L!
And by the way, during the '04 election campaign, bush (lowercase intentional) claimed there were already over 100,000 Iraqis trained. Of course we found out a little later that the number was actually closer to 1 fully trained battallion (about 800 men). So we'll stay there until they are ready to stand down, or we'll sit down until they are ready for us to stand up at which point we'll help them sit down so we can stand around and watch them lay down, or is it....Oh never mind. GTFO NOW!
I'd be interested in your source for the numbers you posted.
Thanks,
Wait a minute AA.
You require a source from a poster at MMFA for figures, yet you give your president a pass on providing information that would back his figures?
Just because he's the president doesn't give him the right to make up statistics to fit his talking points.
I'm not sure which madness you are referring. It seems to me that the outcome of an premature departure by the U.S. in Iraq ensures the worst case scenario.
I don't like being there anymore than anyone else. But it seems to me that now that we are there, leaving would make matters much worse for the region and the U.S.
I do believe our enemies want us to stay and by waging this low level war, feel they are, in a perverted sort of way, winning. Everyone was aghast at the shootings at Virginia Tech and the loss of innocent life. But what is going on is much worse in Iraq. These crazed fascist feel it is moral to kill innocents to advance their agenda. I believe we have to show them that this type of terrorism cannot win. They believe that success breeds success. They only want to kill the enemy. They want to force people into their religion and if they can't, they want to kill them. We must stand up to these murderous vermin now because if we don't we'll have to face them later. If they take over Iraq then they'll be better financed and cause even more death and destruction.
How can it possibly get worse than it is now?
They won't have anyone to blame the killings on anymore, so they might actually stop. Stablility can only come once the Americans are gone.
We must stand up to these murderous vermin now because if we don't we'll have to face them later.
So you are for pulling out of Iraq and going after them.
AA easier said then done
In a perfect world we would be able to do as you stated, but in reality it is not. The Middle East has been a very unstable region for hundreds of years; uniting the people is almost an impossible task. All we can realistically do is stabalize Iraq to the best of our abilities, and finding POLITICAL solutions to this problem. Many people(including me) are deeply angered by the mistakes made by our current president. Hopefully our next will find a way out of Iraq...
You're confusing the Iraqi civil war with terrorism.
We haven't got a horse in the civil war. We don't belong there. It's a shame we lit the fuse on that mess and there'll be a special place in Hell for Bush for having done that, and for the manner he did it. But it's time our soldiers get the heck out of there.
But pulling out of Iraq is not the same as abandoning the war on terror. There's no reason we can't arrive at agreements with the Iraqi government to pursue terrorists, if any, in Iraq. But we'd probably be more productive pursing such diplomatic solutions with Pakistan.
So just stop with the silly "fight 'em there or we'll fight 'em here" nonsense. That's just Rove speaking.
Well Rino I somewhat aggree..
However what kind of incentive are we giving the Iraqi government to straighten up, if we stay there forever? You are correct when you state we need to put pressure on the Iraqi government to fix things(if possible lol) within their country...but staying their indefinantly does the very opposite....
Maybe he's just a rigid old man who's time has passed.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->war·ri·or 1.a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier. 2.
a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.
Looks like #1 applies...#2 is the exact opposite of McCain since losing to Bush in 2000.
I guess we're supposed to feel sorry for McCain because politics isn't "warry" enough for him?
Maybe if we threw him in a tiger cage submerged in water for a few weeks, he'd come out ready to do some warrior/maverick style campaigning.
There once was a grump named McCain
Whose stance on Iraq was insane
He's dispirited indeed
'Cause his soul he did cede
For the truth he has much disdain
You are the master.
WOW, a petress in our midst
WOW, a poetress in our midst
"poetess," I think
Limericks, huh?
I can do haikus:
McCain is a suckup
He does what con senators want
Kucinich is the maverick
Crappy, I know...
Hey, Redking, you say Dennis won't be chosen to run
If he does, I challenge you to vote for him!
Kucinich....nah....
Gravel has got it made...lol
Denniiiis!
McCain is no "maverick," either. That description is as trumped-up as the completely misnamed "Straight-Talk Express" of his past Presidential Campaigns.
Someone who is too much of a "warrior" to be a politician wouldn't have appeared on The Daily Show completely unprepared, and wouldn't have been so easily filleted and broiled by Jon Stewart.
I saw that episode of Daily Show...
And McCain came out looking like a complete fool. He repeated the same old tired Republican talking points and barely answered Jon's questions. It was tough to watch a once honorable congressman be swarmed by the Bushies of the world....
he lokked more like that duracell battery bunny, pounding on the podium. He is done.
i was multitasking. the above comment was meant for another subject.
And jon was polite and respectful and yet it was the most devistating deconstruction of someone i have seen lately. And the one doing the deconstructing was McCain all by himself, Jon gave him several places where he could have redeemed himself and he made sure to screw up every one of them...
I would recommend McCain retire from capitol politics and enjoy life without the burden of having to grind out answers that fit the situation at hand.
Yeah,
These corporate right-wingers--Evan Thomas a prime example--are so despondent when their "heroes" aren't do as well as they hoped.
There must be something terribly wrong with the "system" if their wing-nuts are having some trouble. These "authentic warriors" are above the fracas of mere politics, and an "immortal" like the great flip-flopper himself--John McCain--is true to American values.
I thought he was the "straight talking" and no nonsense "maverick". Now he's a "warrior" at heart. Although I wonder how much a guy in his 70's can be a "warrior" especially when he isn't currently in the armed forces.
Nothing like realizing your dream of being the big cheese isn't going to happen to make a person dispirited.
And it couldn't have happened to a better guy.