Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » McCain Hauls America From the Abyss

McCain Hauls America From the Abyss

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Remember when public figures were impressive? It’s a dim, distant memory, but not a nostalgic hallucination: once there were good men, and we’d occasionally elect them.

This desiccated memory crawled back to mind a few days ago, when John McCain rammed an anti-torture bill through the Senate. Now, there are those who would dismiss McCain as a foaming imperialist: James Wolcott in particular, whose reliable judgment seems to lose its compass whenever a pol or pundit refuses to insist upon an immediate retreat from Iraq. Wolcott has denounced McCain as a “choleric hawk,” borrowing his words from his good friend Camille Paglia. And Paglia derives her opinion from McCain’s face, believe it or not:

The TV camera does not lie: Just as it showed from the get-go that ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a nervous, shifty, sweaty, petulant mental adolescent, so has it exposed McCain over time as a seething nest of proto-fascist impulses. Despite his recent flurry of radiant, P.R.-coached grins, McCain has the weirdly wary and over-intense eyes of Howard Hughes and the clenched, humorless jaw line of Nurse Diesel.

Well, the television does lie. It’s what it does best. The television has, for instance, on occasion portrayed Camille Paglia as sane.

Yes, McCain’s a warrior. But that’s not quite the same as a bloodthirsty chickenhawk. In fact, it’s pretty much the opposite. Yes, he supports the current war in Iraq, but I’d be interested in knowing what that really means. He’s also on record as supporting George Bush, a man he patently despises. My sense is that McCain is triangulating (even the greatest men do that, when thrown into the cesspool of Realpolitik): he needs to stand elbow to shoulder with Bush, in order to have any chance at the Republican candidacy in 2008; and I suspect he has very complex reasons for supporting the war.

Those reasons? Well, let’s face it: have you heard any coherent plans for dealing with the Iraqi toxic waste dump? Those who loathe the war (and I’m one) are inclined to say “cut and run” — but that is probably not the most intelligent strategy. The current poisonous mess could grow even more lethal: imagine a former Iraq, split into a democratic Kurdistan (nice, but the ensuing war with Turkey could prove ugly); a rogue Sunni state, constituting little more than a base and spawning ground for terrorists; and a Shiite theocracy, now tight with Iranians fellow travelers, and sitting on at least 112.5 billion barrels of oil — the second largest pool in the world, after Saudi Arabia.

Not a pleasant thought. And no: I haven’t the faintest idea what to do about it, except that “cut and run” may not be the most realistic option. If anyone in America does know what to do in this situation, it will be someone like McCain or Kerry: a proven military leader, with a long history of successful diplomacy. McCain, in particular, is as much a skilled and principled diplomat as anything else — this is a man who went out of his way to forge peaceful relations with a nation that imprisoned him for years, and tortured him for much of it. If McCain says that we need more troops on the ground, for the moment: well, I’m inclined to value his opinion. That does not make him a “choleric hawk” — it simply makes him a guy who recognizes the importance of cleaning up Bush’s mess properly.

Which brings us back to the current bill. Christ, finally someone has had the courage to stand up to this administration’s shameful embrace of utter barbarism. And McCain has done it in language that will stand up well in the history books: “The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are.”

Absolutely right: it’s about the soul of America. And I mean that in the full religious sense, which someone like Bush ought to comprehend (if his religion were about something more than sentimental self-esteem) — it’s about the Good, and it’s about damnation.

———————————————-

If this post ruined your lunch, please visit Dysblog, which will spoil your dinner.

Powered by

About visigoth

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Sounds like you’ve read the press about the ‘bill’ – which is an amendment to the military appropriateions bill, btw – rather than reading the text of it.

    If you read the text, you’ll find that it’s basically just a reiteration of established military policy and says exactly the same things which Bush himself has previously stated are the policies of his administration. It’s not some radical stand on principle, it’s more like a mild reminder of what’s already supposed to be policy.

    Dave

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Yes, and Bush is threatening to *veto* it.

  • The Searcher

    Bush is vetoing his own policies now? What a confusing fellow.

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    It would be the first time George has ever vetoed a spending bill. A *military* spending bill, no less. And why? Because it has the temerity to “remind” him that his quaint habit of extenuating torture is loathsome (and illegal).

    Dave, your knee-jerk defense of this scumbag is getting really distressing — you might want to think about getting professional help.

  • http://sorestloser.blogspot.com mike valdman

    Very interesting post. But is Paglia really that off base by using McCain’s jaw line to peer into his soul? The problem is that McCain’s real views are virtually impenetrable except on issues like pork barrel spending and campaign finance reform. Some on the left ignore his solidly conservative voting record and think he’s really one of them. I thought that his hatred of Bush would emerge in the 2004 election, but he brushed Kerry aside and campaigned for Bush enthusiastically (or at least with feigned enthusiasm). So what does he really believe? Is he as pro-life as his voting record suggests, or does he vote that way as a matter of politics? Is he pro-war primarily for political reasons? I haven’t a clue. But the “genuine article” gets less and less genuine as we approach 2008.

  • Les Slater

    > Dave, your knee-jerk defense of this scumbag is getting really distressing — you might want to think about getting professional help.

    Did I miss something?

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    I agree that McCain, despite being the liberals’ favorite right-winger, is probably not much of a liberal. What he is, however, is *virtuous*. All of the ancient virtues — courage, magnanimity, practical wisdom — are notoriously lacking in this administration; McCain is very much an anomaly. For the most part he acts in accordance with what he believes — rare on either side of the aisle, frankly. As for what he believes: I’d judge him a moderate, by Republican standards. Right of center, certainly, but not far to the right of, say, Joe Lieberman.

    I am not saying that I would support him for president. I mean, I *would*, if he were a Democrat or an independent. But the men he would drag into office with him, as a Republican, would probably more than offset whatever good he would bring to the nation.

    I’d love to see a McCain-Kerry ticket. Or, best of all, a McCain-Hackett ticket (unlikely).

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    (Oh, and Les: you missed that David couldn’t wait to counter any post remotely critical of the current administration. It’s an illness with him — given that whenever you ask him what he truly believes, you tend to get a sensible reponse.)

  • Nancy

    McCain & anybody not a Republican is an unlikely combination. For reasons of his own, he stays loyal to the party that stabbed him in the back, altho he’s certainly entitled to kick them in the teeth & tell them where to go after the dirty tricks they pulled in 2000. I was very surprised when he ante’d up and kissed Bush’s butt for the 2004 elections. The GOP must have made him some stiff promises.

  • Les Slater

    > David couldn’t wait to counter any post remotely critical of the current administration

    I agree with his post 100% and I do not in any way support the Bush administration.

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Do you really agree? David implies that the amendment isn’t really important — “mild,” in his words. Which is absolute garbage: it’s a *radical* critique of this administration, which is why Bush is contemplating a veto.

    What Bush has “stated are the policies of his administration” is not quite the clear statement Dave would like: the Gonzales memo, for instance — endorsed by Bush — goes very much counter to this amendment.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Douglas, it’s only a critique of the administration if you choose to take it that way. If you look at the words and compare them with the stated policies of the administration they are not in conflict. The amendment does NOT extend the protection of the Constitution to detainees who are under military law and it doesn’t counter extraordinary rendition, so it’s compatible with the Gonzales position.

    >>Dave, your knee-jerk defense of this scumbag is getting really distressing — you might want to think about getting professional help.<<

    Which scumbag are you referring to here? My observations on this subject are hardly a defense of Bush. If anything they’re the exact opposite. Bush threatening to veto this amendment is insanely stupid, because it gives the amendment the aura of controversy which attracted your attention. Bush could have welcomed it and said, “yes it’s a clear statement of what we believe, thanks” and totally defused the situation, because the wording supports that response. By threatening to veto it he makes it look like the critique which people would like it to be but which it really isn’t. Dumb.

    Dave

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Hm. Okay, if that’s your intent, then I take it back. But I do believe that the amendment is a very serious critique, in that it is *open-ended*, just as the Gonzales memo is open-ended. Gonzales opened a gaping hole in the Geneva conventions, through which Bush could drive anything he pleased. The amendment is an attempt — equally non-specific — to close that hole. Bush sees it that way, as do McCain and all of those who voted with him.

  • Les Slater

    > David implies that the amendment isn’t really important

    The Boland Amendment was to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983. It prohibited the federal government from providing military support “for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua.”

    I visited Nicaragua in 1985. It was quite clear, regarless of what the bill said, or was advertised to be, it did no such thing.

    It was interpreted by the Reagan administration to only apply to US intelligence agencies.

    They always will interpret whatever they wish however they wish, they’ll find loopholes. McCain knows this.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Bush himself has condemned torture on more than one occasion, and the people who voted for the amendment include some of his most ardent supporters. I still fail to see how – just on the wording of the amendment – it criticizes the administration. The president didn’t authorize the instances of torture which have taken place, and those involved have been condemned and punished. Torturing prisoners has never been official policy and this amendment merely affirms that, which is why people can support it and support Bush at the same time – whether he gets it or not.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > Torturing prisoners has never been official policy

    No, but it is, and will continue to be, the real policy, McCain nothwithsstanding.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    You make McCain’s effort sound even more meaningless, Les.

    I do think that if we were using torture on a more systematic basis it would be impossible to cover up. It seems like the isolated incedents which have come to light are just aberations.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > I do think that if we were using torture

    We? It’s not my government. Your’s?

    > on a more systematic basis it would be impossible to cover up.

    That’s what extraordinary rendition is all about.

    > seems like the isolated incidents which have come to light are just aberrations.

    Now you ARE covering up for that scumbag.

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Yes, I retract my retraction. For Christ’s sake, Dave — what do you think Fishback’s testimony is all about? Torture on a *systematic basis*. And the administration is doing their best to cover it up (to shut him up, that is). Rumsfeld has been credibly quoted as saying, “Either break him, or destroy him.”

  • RogerMDillion

    is this the same McCain who denounced Gov. Gray Davis for raising money $26 mil, but has no probelm with Gov Arnold raising $76 mil.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    That is because Arnold is taking California to greater and better things.

    Do you think Davis would have vetoed the driver’s liscenses for ILLEGAL immigrants???

    Oh yeah, I have an anouncement to make and this is the most appropriate thread to do it on too:

    John McCain is Pro-Life!!!

    If Condy doesn’t run, McCain for President!!!

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Anthony, you really are a one-issue pony, aren’t you.

    Wake up. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Ever. Not gonna happen. This most recent Supreme Court opening was Bush’s last chance, and he blew it. (I suspect even Roberts won’t vote to overturn that precedent; Harriet won’t go near it, as her friend Hecht so nicely pointed out.) But keep dreaming.

    Actually, there’s a fairly credible theory that Bush and Co. don’t *want* to overturn Roe v. Wade — because it gives them a nice issue to get high and mighty about in order to keep people like you frothing and on their side. (Otherwise you might notice other significant flaws in their governance.)

    Let’s face it: you’d vote for a slobbering leper if he pretended loudly to be anti-choice. Which is what they’re counting on.

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    McCain kicks ass. I wish he were free to share his true feelings about our glorious leader. It pains me to think that he could be our president right now if not for the reprehensible tactics that Bush used against him in South Carolina in 2000. These consisted of spreading rumors through push-polls that McCain was mentally ill and had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (The McCains adopted daughter from India.) How you can pull that kind of shit and still consider yourself a Christian is beyond me. Sorry for rambling.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Wrong, it will be overturned in a matter of a few years. First it will be reduced to before 6 months after conception only, then 4 months, then 3 months , then 2 months, then 2 weeks.

    It will remain at 2 weeks for a long time, but then one day: Boom!!! Boom!!! to the Moon!!! It’s Gone!!!!

    —–

    Can you imagine how good McCain would be for the War on Terror???

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Alienboy

    dream on, AG…

  • Les Slater

    > Wake up. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Ever. Not gonna happen. This most recent Supreme Court opening was Bush’s last chance, and he blew it. (I suspect even Roberts won’t vote to overturn that precedent; Harriet won’t go near it, as her friend Hecht so nicely pointed out.) But keep dreaming.

    The purpose of putting Roberts and Miers on the Court is to guarantee that Roe will NOT be overturned.

  • http://adamash.blogspot.com adam

    Excellent posting as usual, Douglas.
    Dave, you really can be a knee-jerk Bushit defender, despite the fact that you’re also quite sensible. Douglas really nails you with this one:
    “Oh, and Les: you missed that David couldn’t wait to counter any post remotely critical of the current administration. It’s an illness with him — given that whenever you ask him what he truly believes, you tend to get a sensible response.”
    When you have a chance to think, you’re thoughtful, but more often than not you’re too quick off the mark with some inane defense of the Bushits: which one is the real you?

  • Les Slater

    > When you have a chance to think, you’re thoughtful, but more often than not you’re too quick off the mark with some inane defense of the Bushits: which one is the real you?

    I always oppose the policies of the Bush administration. Show me where it is otherwise.

  • Les Slater

    After rereading 27, it seems the “Oh Les” criticism was referring to Dave.

    At the time Douglas wrote his 8, Dave had only written his 1, which had no support of Bush in it.

    It wasn’t till his 17 that Dave was apologetic of both McCain and Bush. I responded with my 18.

    There was no basis for Douglas’s 4. That’s why “Did I miss something?” of my 6.

    I don’t think Dave’s 17 contradicts his 1, he just elaborates and shows that he does not see what’s going on.

    I don’t see Dave’s subjective, objective maybe, support for Bush in his 17 either. It is just an indication of his naïveté.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Yes, I retract my retraction. For Christ’s sake, Dave — what do you think Fishback’s testimony is all about? Torture on a *systematic basis*.

    Misquote. He said ‘systemic basis’, which doesn’t mean the same thing. His testimony is that torture was a widespread problem as a result of confusion, not that it was a systematic procedure or policy.

    >>And the administration is doing their best to cover it up (to shut him up, that is). Rumsfeld has been credibly quoted as saying, “Either break him, or destroy him.”< <

    Are you actually familiar with what Fishback has said, or are you just picking up interpretations from secondary sources? That Rumsfeld "quote" has never been attributed or substantiated in ANY source. It's pure speculation.

    Fishback definitively does NOT say that there was a policy of torture. Instead, his focus is on the lack of clarity of policy, and the lack of oversight of middle-management when it came to prisoner abuse. The word he uses is not 'systematic', but 'systemic'. Very significantly different words from someone who clearly knows what they mean.

    In addition, Fishback himself was involved in torturing prisoners and seems only to have developed concerns about it after the fact. Some might say that CYA is playing a big role here.

    The really mystifying thing about Fishback's statements is that he goes on and on about how he went to various people and asked them what the policy was supposed to be and kept getting ambiguous answers. One has to wonder why he didn't read the Geneva Convention - which is widely available and to which we are signatories and which several people pointed him to, including the JAG officer on site, or read the Army Field Manual which he was certainly issued or could get hold of a copy of pretty damned easily. Why was Fishback so confused on issues which are clearly defined in black and white?

    Here are a couple of the questions Fishback asked:

    Fishback �Is it a violation to chain prisoners to the ground naked for the purpose of interrogations?�

    Army Field Manual: “Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity…Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.

    Fishback �And then there is the prisoner on the box with the wires attached to him, and to me, as long as electricity didn�t go through the wires, that was in accordance with what I would have expected US policy to be and that he wasn�t under the threat of death.

    Army Field Manual: “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

    There’s no mystery or ambiguity here. What exactly was Fishback fishing for when he started asking these questions? The official policy he should have been following is absolutely clear and easily available. Hell, as a West Pointer he should have had it memorized. Was he looking for permission to torture, or trying to ‘catch’ others violating the rules so he could turn them in? Was he trying to pursue some sort of personal or political agenda? For that matter why did he end up going ot Human Rights Watch when there are so many on capitol hill who’d love to have talked to him? His behavior seems largely ego driven and very, very suspect.

    But you be the judge. The Fishback testimony is on Human Rights Watch.

    I know, once again I’m going to be accused of being a Bush apologist, but this has nothing to do with Bush. It’s just about the facts as they really exist. Torture is unacceptable, and the military DOES have a policy on it, and anyone – like Fishback – who couldn’t figure that policy out is either an idiot or up to no good.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    America needs a transitional President as the victor in the 2008 election. John McCain would be the ideal President to bridge us from the era of marginal, morally devoid Presidencies to a new era of electing the best that America has to offer. Senator McCain is a candidate attractive to the mainstream. He may be conservative in many areas, but he is a realist. He serves his country well and has been demonized for far too long by the Rovian machine. That, in and of itself, should have tipped off Americans that the good Senator would be a great choice. Rovians don’t like candidates who speak their minds and represent the best of what America has to offer. Instead, Rovians recruit and promote those who can be made puppets by spin meisters and big business. You want to define an enemy of the state? Look no further than Karl Rove.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Give me a break, Silas. Karl Rove is just a machiavellian political operative who does what it takes to advance the interests of his guy. IMO he’s a breath of fresh air compared to the various ideologues on both sides who are out there. He has no political principles – or any principles at all – and you need guys like that around to do the dirty work.

    As for McCain, I’m all for him, but he’s much more conservative than a lot of people realize and he is genuinely pro-life, unlike Bush. But his main liability is his age. I think he’s going to be slightly older than Reagan was when he was elected, and his health history isn’t as good as Reagan’s was.

    Then there’s the question – if he’s a transitional president – what is he transitioning to? Jeb Bush? Barrack Obama? There are a couple of unappealing prospects.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I know, Dave. Rove is different from other Rasputins who have occupied an office in the White House. That being said, my instincts tell me that he is more than an opportunist. Perhaps I am silly to base my disdain for Rove on my instincts but they have served me well in the past. John Roberts is a good case in point. On the surface, he seemed like an ideal nominee for the conservatives to applaud. That made many liberals nervous. My gut told me that beyond the media hype was a decent guy who would be reasonable on the bench. Of course, it’s too early to tell how it will all come down. But, in the meantime, I’ll rely on my instincts.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As you point out with the Roberts nomination, Rove isn’t exactly working FOR the Theocons. He’s there to figure out how to make them toe the line. IMO that’s not such a bad thing.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Yep, the THEOCONS served Rove well. Rove is a modern day Saul of Tarsus!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Perfect comparison, Silas. Saul was a hypocritical bastard, but he got the job done.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    The fact that Rove has no principles at all – that he will in fact gladly & gleefully do any dirty work required of him or that he feels necessary – is precisely why I look forward to seeing his ass frogmarched in handcuffs from the WH, and why it is even more urgent & imperative that he be neutralized & never allowed to operate for anyone, of any party, ever again; because his ultimate target is not the immediate focus of his attention, but the US citizenry who he deprives of their rights by his dirty tricks & vile behavior/thinking. I would strongly suggest we use him instead against foreign interests such as the Chinese or N. Korea, where his guile would serve the US much better.

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Dave, while I’ll grant you that there is a difference between “systemic” and “systematic,” I will *not* grant you that the one is somehow less damning than the other.

    “Systemic” suggests a pervasive activity which is, at least at the lower levels of the system, unconscious: it is structural. “Systematic” implies a conscious regime of behavior. (This is a simplification, but it seems to me generally correct.)

    What is important, to my mind, is that systemic issues are equally the responsibility of the leaders of any given institution: the system is *their* system, and theirs to change. You cannot exculpate Bush on the grounds that his leadership and policies do not promote the explicit, systematic application of torture: the fact is that they *permit and overlook and thereby encourage* the abuse of detainees.

    And this has nothing to do with the letter of the law, as quoted by you: Gonzales’ memo, and its endorsement by Bush and Rumsfeld, explicitly *deny the relevance of those laws.* Hence Fishback’s question: which do we follow, the laws learned at Westpoint, or Gonzales’ “new paradigm.”

    As for this discussion of Saul of Tarsus: I’m interested in how you get from St. Paul to St. Karl. There are many theories regarding Paul: for instance, that he invented as opposed to merely codified Christianity. But even Paul as The Greatest Salesman in the World was never precisely a Rove figure — he rallied the base after the fact, and was a front man, not a Machiavellian operator behind the scenes.

    Also, to my mind there is no doubting his sincerity — his anti-Semitism, like Luther’s, stemmed from hideous conviction, rather than cynical opportunism. For the personality of Paul, there’s a rigorous treatise is at:

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>”Systemic” suggests a pervasive activity which is, at least at the lower levels of the system, unconscious: it is structural. “Systematic” implies a conscious regime of behavior. (This is a simplification, but it seems to me generally correct.) < <

    That's how I read the two words as well. And the difference IS significant. It's the difference between murder and negligent homicide.

    >>What is important, to my mind, is that systemic issues are equally the responsibility of the leaders of any given institution: the system is *their* system, and theirs to change. You cannot exculpate Bush on the grounds that his leadership and policies do not promote the explicit, systematic application of torture: the fact is that they *permit and overlook and thereby encourage* the abuse of detainees. < <

    Sure, there's blame to be given out at high levels if the problem is systemic - which is Fishback's assertion, but which may not be borne out by other evidence.

    >>And this has nothing to do with the letter of the law, as quoted by you: Gonzales’ memo, and its endorsement by Bush and Rumsfeld, explicitly *deny the relevance of those laws.* Hence Fishback’s question: which do we follow, the laws learned at Westpoint, or Gonzales’ “new paradigm.”<<

    Fishback never mentions any question about whether the prisoners should be considered POWs or not, nor does he ever mention the gonzales memo, which almost certainly did not filter down to his level in the military hierarchy. His confusion seems to stem entirely from his observation of and participation in questionable activities without any supervision or guidance. In which case why did he not do the logical thing and consult the Army Field Manual?

    is testimony speaks most clearly of his own profound lack of character, not just of the lack of guidance which the military was providing him. I submit that most officers of his rank do not need special instructions on how to treat prisoners humanely, and that much of the confusion he portrays stemmed from others not understanding why Fishback was at all confused in the first place.

    His account of his discussion with the JAG officer is a perfect example of this. Looked at objectively the JAG officer basically blew him off as irritating and perhaps idiotic and in effect said ‘go read the geneva convention’, which Fishback in his somewhat delusional way took as the JAG guy being confused about the policy, when it seems more likely he was confused about why the hell Fishback was asking him such a dumb question.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As for Rove’s amorality, I find it refreshing. I’d rather have more honest amorality and less dishonest and hypocritical religious self-righteousness.

    Dave

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    The thread is about MCCAIN, not Rove or Christianity!!!

    McCain for President!!!

    McCain for President!!!

    Down with Roe v. Wade!!!

    Down with Roe v. Wade!!!

    McCain for President!!!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, but if McCain wins it will be because he listens to someone like Rove who tells him to soft-pedal his pro-life stance and tell the people what they want to hear. You should love the Karl Rove’s of the world, Anthony – they keep your illusion of hope alive.

    dave

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Just wait… Dave, Just wait…

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper

    Anthony, you make me nervous. And I say that as a fence-sitter on the question of abortion. This kind of zealotry does *not* help your cause. The fact is that a hefty majority of Americans — well over sixty percent — are in favor of the decision in Roe v. Wade.

    As for your naive notions about Miers — recall that Laura Bush was a major force in this selection. This from David Frum’s blog on NRO:

    “Remember: Laura Bush is on record as a supporter – not just of abortion rights – but of the Roe v. Wade decision. Interviewed on the Today program in January 2001, Mrs. Bush was asked point blank about the case. Her answer: “No, I don’t think it should be overturned.” Is it credible that Mrs. Bush would be endorsing Harriet Miers if the first lady thought that Miers would really do what James Dobson thinks she’ll do?”

    (i.e. overturn Roe v. Wade)

    As for McCain: he’s a pragmatist. He’ll pay lip service to the anti-choice contingent, but he knows that some 63 percent of Americans are on the other side of this issue.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    >The fact is that a hefty majority of Americans — well over sixty percent — are in favor of the decision in Roe v. Wade.< I got to disagree there Douglas. Even Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) is now Anti-Abortion. Here: http://www.webedelic.com/church/roevwadef.htm

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The fact that one person changed her opinion – even if she was the original subject of the case – means nothing in the face of the statistical trend in support of abortion.

    Dave

  • http://www.dysblog.blogspot.com Douglas Anthony Cooper
  • http://adamash.blogspot.com adam

    Dave: your Jesuit parsing of “systemic” and “systematic” is ludicrous. The fact is that “systemic” means the military is positively riddled with torture, and Brownback was either trying to find a place for his conscience amidst all that was openly — i.e. systematically and systemically — going on, or more probably, trying to cover his ass. General Miller brought Gitmo practices to the Middle-East, and was charged to do so by the higher-ups, none of whom are being held accountable, while peons like Lynndie England are being court-martialed. And now Bush threatens to veto John McCain’s move. Jesus, don’t be shilling for Bush’s odious immorality, you’re better than that.

  • http://adamash.blogspot.com adam

    Bush says he’s against torture. He also says he’s going to have great programs for rebuilding the Gulf Coast, but where are they? If Bush says something, it doesn’t mean much. It means Rove told him to say it. His actions usually belie his bromides.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    “Gitmo practices”? You mean treating prisoners like they’re basically in a luxury hotel?

    Dave