Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 20:39:55 GMT -5
I'm done. Think what you want.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 27, 2018 21:09:18 GMT -5
I get people's criticisms, but as far as I can tell, most of them are criticisms that would apply to the whole GOP, as opposed to McCain specifically. From what I've read/listened to over the last two days about him, as a person: He screwed up a lot. He was wrong a lot. He had a temper. And. He apologized. He made amends. He admitted his errors. He was fully cognizant of his past mistakes, and he rejected accolades, referring people to his great capacity for error (WaPo). I've always admired humility and the ability to admit error and to change one's own mind, which, as Cass noted, he did, on more than one occasion. I don't know that I'd have appreciated it as much as I do after having been subjected to almost two years of Trump's presidency. Long and short, when I die, I hope to have as many redeeming qualities to offset my flaws as McCain did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 22:30:16 GMT -5
plus 1, Christine. I had to come back because I tracked down the origin of that cunt story; it comes from the same source a number of other nasty (and IMO dubious) McCain stories come from. Turns out it's from a book put out by a progressive consultant in 2008, as are some of the other anecdotes Opty cites, and which were quoted again and again thereafter. McCain denied some of the anecdotes, including the cunt one, and claims others (fighting/temper ones) have been exaggerated. The sources for many stories, including the cunt one, seem to be anonymous. When the book came out, left-leaning publications, who of course were in love with Obama, were pretty happy to disseminate the stories -- that's likely why the "cunt" story is pretty much identically worded ("he reddened" etc.) in every one of them. I'm not inclined to put much weight in anonymously sourced stories originating from a single book put out by someone who pretty clearly had political motivation to make McCain look as bad as he could. Yes, the man definitely had a temper. But he seems to have a hell of a lot of respect from both sides of the aisle, and liking, too. That's been the case for many years -- it is not just since he got sick. He had close friendships with Democrats that go back decades, ffs. I'm inclined to regard much of that book, including the cunt story, as a pure hit piece without much credibility. I'm sure someone told the author the stories. Doesn't mean the sources were reliable. You don't reach the Senate without making some enemies along the way, especially if you are a character like McCain. I've little doubt if any one of us became famous, you could dredge up some people in our past eager to say some nasty shit about us. Some of it might even have some basis in fact--but then again, maybe not so much. I'm really not all that inclined to put much weight in some random high school acquaintance saying "yeah, we called him McNasty!" Yes, McCain did make the terrible Chelsea crack, and yes, it's awful and I won't defend him for it. But he apologized to the Clintons for it, and they accepted his apology as "heartfelt" Later, he and Hillary apparently had an excellent working relationship and spoke of each other warmly and with respect. T hey also went out doing vodka shots together in Estonia. So yeah, I do agree the crack was totally awful, but apparently he felt terrible about it (as well he should have), and the Clintons feel he made amends, so I think maybe I can let it go if they can. Anyway. I really hadn't intended to come back to the conversation, but when I found a number of stories coming back to the same book that came out just in time for the 2008 election and then all those stories seemingly going back underground after the election...I thought it was worth noting. (And no, by the way, I am not for one minute saying Obama participated in a hit job on McCain. I have a pretty high opinion of Obama's integrity, as a matter of fact, and it seems there was mutual respect between McCain and Obama, even if they sparred (as all candidates do) on the campaign trail.) You are free to sneer at me as delusional--I'm keeping my high opinion of McCain. You can keep your opinion and welcome -- I don't care to talk you out of it. ETA: Seriously -- three reporters allegedly witness the cunt incident, but every one of them would only talk to the author of the book on the condition of anonymity -- and years later, that's still the case. We still have no idea who these timid, timid reporters are! I call bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 28, 2018 8:57:56 GMT -5
I get people's criticisms, but as far as I can tell, most of them are criticisms that would apply to the whole GOP, as opposed to McCain specifically. From what I've read/listened to over the last two days about him, as a person: He screwed up a lot. He was wrong a lot. He had a temper. And. He apologized. He made amends. He admitted his errors. He was fully cognizant of his past mistakes, and he rejected accolades, referring people to his great capacity for error (WaPo). I've always admired humility and the ability to admit error and to change one's own mind, which, as Cass noted, he did, on more than one occasion. I don't know that I'd have appreciated it as much as I do after having been subjected to almost two years of Trump's presidency. Long and short, when I die, I hope to have as many redeeming qualities to offset my flaws as McCain did. I largely agree with this. The only thing I am saying (and that I think Opty is saying) is that he had a very mixed record and was a flawed person. I don't think he was terrible. But I also don't see what made him "great." What exactly did he accomplish in all his years in the Senate? What groundbreaking legislation did he sponsor? What deals did he broker? He cast a few votes that were important (like saving Obamacare) but overall, I honestly don't see why Cass thinks history is going to record him as one of the greats. He did have some gravitas and I suppose you could use the term "statesmanlike" to describe him, but really, that's only in comparison to the increasingly unstatesmanlike demeanor of his younger colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mostly, he just looks good compared to other Republicans today. And Cass, since when am I a "lefty"? I mean, I suppose it depends on your perspective. To a conservative Republican, I am definitely a lefty, but I do not identify with the modern Left and my criticisms of McCain are certainly not because he wasn't leftist enough. I just think he was a mostly mediocre man elevated beyond his stature by events and happenstance. When Obama dies and the hagiographies are written about how he was the Best President Ever, I'm going to be the sourpuss saying yeah, he was okay, he was decent, he largely did a competent job, but he was not great. I think "great" is an overused term. I think very, very few people rise to greatness. It takes more than just doing a passable job and occasionally hitting some base runs.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 28, 2018 9:21:06 GMT -5
To be fair, Optimus, Pete Domenici was an asshole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 9:22:34 GMT -5
I don't disagree that "great" is often overused, nor that the man had flaws. But I think McCain fits the dictionary definition:
The word "hero" is also overused, but I think it applies fully to John McCain.
The definition of "saint" is quite different, but then I didn't apply that one.
Sometimes a person's flaws or bad actions are egregious enough to outweigh the good (or "great", which isn't the same) and diminish and disgrace them forever. (E.g., all the sexual abusers who've been exposed.) I submit that is not true for McCain. Moreover, with regard to many of his mistakes, he acknowledged them, apologized, and reversed himself-- which, IMO is a pretty refreshing change from the current double-down philosophy we see so much of.
And yes, to some extent he looms larger because of the littleness of so many around him.
Could he have been a better man in many ways? Yes -- as he was the first to acknowledge. But was he "considerable above the average"? I think unquestionably yes.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 28, 2018 10:43:06 GMT -5
I agree with Cassandra.
Everyone is flawed. Everyone screws up (not just the GOP). It's difficult to be a politician. No matter what you say or do, someone out there is going to hate you for it. If you want to be elected, you have to appeal to a lot of people. That means making people on both sides of the aisle pissed off at something. And McCain, especially, had views that appealed to both sides as well as views that infuriated one side or the other. But he was a war hero. And he continued to serve his country for decades after he returned. He had ideals that he reached for, he had values that he held paramount, he was humbly able to see and admit his faults, he was principled. He really seemed to try the best he could in a political realm where power-hunger and greed and self-interests override principles on a daily basis. And that makes him, IMO, deserving of our respect and gratitude.
That said, is some of this current demonstration of affection because of his feud with Trump? Yes, I really do think people are loving him a bit more right now than they would have if he hadn't been so anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other reasons to admire him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 10:57:10 GMT -5
For the record, I admired him long before his feud with Trump, and long before the ACA vote. I think both are characteristic of him, but they're not why I admired him. As I said, I seriously considered voted for him in 2008, and had he chosen another running mate, I very well might have.
True, we have some extra enthusiasm amidst the McCain fan club on the left due to the Trump feud, McCain's illness, etc., and because of the Trump feud and ACA vote, we have some dissing on the right. Indeed, we have some bashing going on on both sides because McCain pissed off both sides now and again, and because he was simply a larger-than-life guy who didn't hesitate to speak his mind. (And since he was up against Obama in 2008, I think there was a pretty big effort on the part of some on the left to slam him then, which reverberates to this day -- like I said above, much of it goes back to a single book written by a progressive operative full of brand new, anonymous "revelations" that remain unverified to this day, but have been repeated so often in Daily Kos and HuffPo they are regarded as gospel by some.)
But there's no question the man has long inspired great admiration and affection on both sides of the aisle -- and I'm hard pressed to come up with many politicians of whom I can say the same, especially today. I mean, come on. Look at the heartfelt tributes on left and right. Look at the people participating in his funeral. We're not likely to see anything like that any time soon.
Some might need to love everything about a person to admire them, but I don't. McCain embodied a number of the virtues that I hold very dear, and that's enough for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 13:31:17 GMT -5
Btw, Last night I devoted an hour to trying to track down a single person willing to say "yeah, I witnessed the cunt incident" (which allegedly happened in 1992 in front of witnesses, including 3 reporters). I found nada -- just cite after cite quoting Cliff Schecter's 2008 book. That incident, if true, is pretty goddamn egregious, IMO. But, at least as far as I can find, not one person in 26 years has raised his or her hand to say "yes, I witnessed that." A number of the worst stories I see about McCain -- in fact, pretty much all of the ones that bother me with the exception of the Chelsea Clinton joke -- come from that book. The book is now out of print, and it's not at my local library (I checked to see, thinking I might just read it). So I guess I won't be reading it. But I had some fun reading interviews with the author in 2008. This one from April 2008 is a gem. I'm sorry, he's an asshole, and I think he was a lot less interested in uncovering the truth and a lot more interested in quashing Obama's competitor and selling books. This is not a serious journalist -- or at least not one I'd take seriously. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-john-mccain-a-muslim-a_b_96055Maybe it's me. He's coming up with some pretty serious, brand-new, never-before-published allegations against a sitting senator, war hero, and presidential candidate, and this is how he talks about it? And even he seems to note that his sources won't give their names. Really, are they all still afraid? Here's what ol' Cliff said after McCain's death, by the way: I'm sorry, he smells wrong to me. I don't trust him. If Maggie Haberman were reporting "yes, I was there and I heard McCain say this," that would be one thing. I'd believe her. But this guy in 2008 citing three anonymous witnesses who have never stepped forward to verify it, and McCain denies it? No. No, I don't buy it. This isn't even a "he said, she said" -- for that, you need a specific "he or she." This is at best an unverified second-hand smear by anonymous sources. And though I know McCain definitely had a temper, this particular incident actually does not sound like him -- taking aside the substance, that's not the way he words things. Given my extreme doubt about that snippet, I'm not inclined to give a lot of weight to the other "revelations" from Schechter's book. I think it was a smear job written for obvious political and self-aggrandizing purposes, that mixed some snippets of truth in with a whole bunch of dubious crap. Anyway. I'm going to move this discussion to a new thread, in case anyone wants to continue it. Buckle your seat belts. ETA: To note, both Obama and Hillary have been victims of this kind of hit "journalism". Some snippets of fact mixed in with a pile of unverified shit that sort of build on the true snippets to make the person seem as bad as possible, in order to feed and cultivate a certain audience ravenous to think the worst of that person, or perhaps hovering on the fence of what to think. Then the allegations are out there, and they get recirculated again and again, and are accepted, at some point, as facts by many people. After all, people have been saying it for ten years... I submit that's what this book was. At the time it was written, McCain presented a threat to Obama because of his maverick, cross-the-aisle reputation, and his substantial experience and reputation. This guy wanted to take an ax to that. McCain's temper gave him something to build on -- he went dredging down every hole he could find to add to it, and if no one wanted to give their name to their allegations, well, gee, too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 28, 2018 14:50:30 GMT -5
Just to note, I recall the "cunt" allegations, but that didn't even factor into what I said about McCain earlier. I don't know what to think about this particular allegation. It always struck me as remarkably over-the-top, but it also struck me as a little sketchy that McCain himself never directly rebutted the claim, even when asked about it during a town hall meeting. I side-eye that "Now, now, Sir, I'm going to move on." If I were accused of saying such a thing to my wife, and I unequivocally did not say that, I would definitely respond "No, I never said any such thing." And I don't see what political calculus would make that a less satisfying and palatable response at a town hall meeting than McCain's rather weaselly evasion. I'm not saying it proves he did actually say it, but it's another tick in the "Possibly true" column. Sp yes, clearly the reporter who reported on it was doing a hit piece on McCain, and his "anonymous sources" are dubious, but when someone accuses a public figure of something outrageous and the public figure avoids saying, in plain English, "That's not true," I always find that suspicious. Yes, I know sometimes it's best not to respond at all, because no response will ever be satisfactory (I don't know if Obama ever specifically addressed the "Secret Muslim born in Kenya" nonsense), but.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 15:05:25 GMT -5
I have read that McCain did later deny it, and forcefully. I acknowledge I haven't (yet) dug up a direct quote from him, though.
To note: The book was published, according to Amazon, on May 1, 2008. The date of that town hall? May 1, 2008.
So: this was a brand-new allegation disclosed for the first time in that book that came out that same day as that town hall. It's quite possible--I think probable--that McCain was totally thrown by having that question come at him at a town hall.
And yes, I think there is some conventional wisdom about just moving on and not getting into it.
ETA:
It appears a couple of teaser interviews with the author came out in left-leaning publications in mid to late April 2008, but as far as I can find, the cunt allegation was not splashed all over mainstream new at that point, not by any means. And again, the author notes that he is the first one to reveal it.
I think it's completely possible that was the first time McCain ever heard that allegation. I doubt he was reading HuffPo much in April 2008 while on the campaign trail. And I think his reaction is perfectly consistent with a "WTF"?
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Aug 28, 2018 15:09:07 GMT -5
I agree with Cassandra. Everyone is flawed. Everyone screws up (not just the GOP). It's difficult to be a politician. No matter what you say or do, someone out there is going to hate you for it. If you want to be elected, you have to appeal to a lot of people. That means making people on both sides of the aisle pissed off at something. And McCain, especially, had views that appealed to both sides as well as views that infuriated one side or the other. But he was a war hero. And he continued to serve his country for decades after he returned. He had ideals that he reached for, he had values that he held paramount, he was humbly able to see and admit his faults, he was principled. He really seemed to try the best he could in a political realm where power-hunger and greed and self-interests override principles on a daily basis. And that makes him, IMO, deserving of our respect and gratitude. That said, is some of this current demonstration of affection because of his feud with Trump? Yes, I really do think people are loving him a bit more right now than they would have if he hadn't been so anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other reasons to admire him. Perhaps if Trump hadn't been so anti-McCain...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 15:25:43 GMT -5
Video of the town hall. Note the date. Note the publication date of the book: www.amazon.com/Real-McCain-Conservatives-Independents-Shouldnt/dp/0979482291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1535487909&sr=8-1&keywords=the+real+mccainNote that the entire audience seems like they're all "WTF -- where is this coming from" at the question. I don't think it was something most had heard at that point, and I think it's perfectly possible that included McCain. Watch the clip, consider the book "breaking" that piece of story came out that same day, and judge for yourself. I note that other than the teaser interviews given by the author (which seem limited to a couple of left-leaning publications like HuffPo), review of the book seem to be dated later than the release date -- in other words, people who didn't read HuffPo or rush out that very day to buy and read the book were extremely likely to have no idea what the hell that remark was about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 16:19:06 GMT -5
Some further digging has turned up the following, if y'all are interested. McCain first heard the allegation on April 7 2008. When the pre-publication interviews for the book came out, the Daily News contacted his campaign, which flatly denied it. The earliest mention of the cunt allegation in the press seems to be in this April 7, 2008 article in Raw Story by someone who got an advance copy of Schechter's book. www.rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html A couple of other sources, including the Daily News, latched onto the Raw Story piece. The Daily News then called the McCain campaign, which had this to say: So. McCain's campaign first heard the allegation on April 7, and his spokesperson immediately denied it. I submit he was likely still thrown to have it come at him in a town hall meeting three weeks later. The word cunt is rarely bandied about in town hall meetings. The allegation was still quite new, and I'm betting he and the campaign weren't taking it all that seriously at that point, because, honestly, on the face of it, I think it sounds pretty incredible in several different ways -- not like McCain (taking cunt aside, "trollop?") and the fact that somehow this had never come out in nearly two decades, and the sources were anonymous.) So having someone stand up in a town hall and ask about what seems like a garbage allegation -- well, watch the clip. I see "WTF" from both McCain and the crowd, and I see McCain making a decision that it's better to just move on. I guess if you see guilt, you see guilt. ETA: The right wing press in 2016 was bandying about stories about how, e.g., Hillary was an angry drunk, citing incidents about how she screamed at waiters. I'm pretty confident those are garbage stories, too. As far as I know, no one stood up in a town hall and asked her about them. If they did, I'm wondering how she would have reacted. From what I've seen, when there are unsubstantiated garbage stories, candidates usually don't get into discussing them. If I recall correctly, Obama's campaign ignored the birther nonsense for a good bit until it became clear that however stupid it was, it was in fact something many were taking seriously, at which point they provided the birth certificate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 16:53:10 GMT -5
|
|