The Left likes to vilify Senator John McCain as a right-wing nut whose goal, like Bush, is to forcibly spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, at whatever cost, by any means necessary. Intelligent Independents know that forced democracy is a contraction in terms.
In a bit of word play so transparent as to be laughable, the MoveOn crowd likes to refer to McCain not as "McCain," but as "McCain-Bush." Their goal, ostensibly, is to ascribe Bush's evil and heavy-handed foreign policy to McCain. Intelligent Independents do not fall for this, any more than we fall for the Right emphasizing Barack Hussein Obama's middle name in order to try to spread anti-Muslim fear, or calling him Osama as a stupid scare tactic. (NB: McCain doesn't fall for this either.)
Some on the Left go even further, not just linking McCain and Bush semantically, but in the case of the Huffington Post (which continues its long and rabid slide into irrelevancy), overlaying headshots of 4,000 dead American soldiers onto a picture of McCain and Bush laughing. Intelligent Independents know that such a perverse mural simply disrespects the lives of these soldiers in a cheap and offensive political stunt to attempt to connect John McCain to Bush to senseless death.
Yet McCain is not a right-wing nut. McCain does not share Bush's approach to foreign policy. Their ultimate goal of freedom and democracy and peace throughout the world might be the same (isn't that everyone's goal?), but their plans for carrying that out are fairly different.(Oh wait, the Intelligent Independent just remembered that peace throughout the world is not everyone's goal. In our idealism, we sometimes momentarily forget that some people hate America, distort a religion whose name means "peace," and are trying to kill us.)
(Sorry, we get testy sometimes.)
As I was saying, painted as a Bushie by the Left, and derided by many on the right, McCain is actually one of us. In a foreign policy speech this week, McCain not only expressed his utter distaste for war and his desire for peace throughout the word, but also declared that "America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model," and went on to channel the words of one wise prophet, Uncle Ben, who taught us that with great power comes great responsibility.
Before anyone tries to connect McCain to Bush again, you might want to take a look at this snippet of McCain's speech:
Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.Truer words have never been spoken. Those are words you might expect out of the mouth of the so-called "uniter," Barack Obama (who, Intelligent Independents have realized with scrunched brows, has the most liberal record in the U.S. Senate -- not exactly someone who appears willing to compromise with ideological adversaries). Definitely not the kind of thing you'd hear from the Texan.
Surprised? Don't be. McCain regularly earns the scorn of his party when he jumps across the aisle for a senate bill he believes in. Unlike many politicians, McCain's actions and words are actually one and the same.But wait, it gets better:
We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.God, no wonder the Right hates McCain. Can you imagine those words (garbled or otherwise) ever coming out of the mouth of Dubya?
There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren.
The Intelligent Independent is thrilled that the confirmed Republican candidate for president shows such a willingness to be thoughtful, to be a good world citizen, to hold true to values and yet remain open to being proved wrong. That is the mark of a True Intelligent Independent. Senator McCain, we commend you!
18 intelligent comments:
I will agree that McCain is better than W. but he did say that he wants to keep the U.S. in Iraq for a 100 years. That doesn't sound very moderate to me. Honestly, it sounds like the words of an American war hero trying to maintain American presence and pressure in the Middle East. Do we even have a right to be there?
I invite you to do some research. Look for speeches and sound bytes from McCain from the last 10 years. Notice how they change.
I was also a flag-waving McCain girl...in 2000. Flash forward to 2003, where the good Senator watches every step and word in order to retain his party's good graces, and keep one of their own in the White House. Having accomplished that, and running a campaign of his own, we once again see flashes of the man he once was...yet the candor is still noticeably subdued. (A party nomination does not a public vote guarantee.)
Eight years ago, I would have agreed with your heading 100%. However, having watched his transformation, he's lost almost all credibility with me by playing the game he once denounced.
Just my two cents.
L.G., it seems to me that your comment only proves my point. In 2000, McCain was the Maverick, and look how far that got him. Of course he was going to rein it in after that in order to back into the good graces of his party. Does that mean he gave up his principles? I think it just fits in with his own description of himself as a "realistic idealist."
But you yourself admit that we again see flashes of the Maverick. Isn't that encouraging? Yes, he had to "play the game" to get the nomination, but now he has it. Now, Republicans have no choice but to back him, so he can go back to the Independent we all loved in 2000.
At the risk of borrowing a cliche from popular culture, "Hate the game, not the playa."
-II
II,
I appreciate your response, and in most contexts, you're right. There were moments in 2003, however, where he directly contradicted his previously expressed views, the indeed intelligent and party-independent views that made him shine for me as a candidate. He appeared a man muzzled. Authenticity was compromised.
I do not ignore his bi-partisan efforts. I do not ignore the measures he's taken to enact true, reasonable change.
I also cannot trust a word he says. At least I knew where the maverick truly stood: on his own two feet.
P.S. - In essence: if it were me, I would rather lose an election on my own principles than stay in good partisan graces on false pretenses. Though 9/11 was still fresh in 2003, most people - especially insiders - could already see the direction we were heading with Bush. For a man who seems so intelligent and progressive, I am still dumbfounded that he spoke in such ardent support of Bush then. 'Twas a classic example of putting partisanship and personal gain before the country's good.
If he actually believed what he said, that scares me even more.
(And while I agree that the Huffington Poster is indecent...the first amendment continues to rock. :) )
Yes, yes, the First Amendment rocks. But I also remember something from my Constitutional law studies about fighting words...
Hmmm... "First Amendment Rocks"... rocks that I can throw at people when they make a mockery of the First Amendment! Great idea!
As long as the rocks come in the form of words, hurl as you will!
""The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
You sound like a fool. You criticize Bush so much here, but if it wasn't for him you would probably be learning Arabic for our new masters you bleeding heart weenie.
Who dubbed the writer of this blog "His Intelligence" in the first place?
i got a bone to pick with anonymous #1 - first of all, who says i already don't speak arabic? would it be ok to serve the new masters IF i didn't have to take the mandatory arabic classes?
Second of all, what is this about a "weenie roast" that you refer to? Where is the BBQ? If i promist to speak arabic, can I have some of the weenies?
No pork though please, and for that matter I am a vegan so please get some tofurkey dogs or just lather up my bun with mustard and relish.
well some stuff i think is probaly intelligence that he is saying. i dont think that going and fighting in iraq was that good of an idea even if it did get rid of an arab king. some parts good, some not so good. honestly do we have enough troops now if the us were invaded? what about china, or mexico? and even thoaugh not 100% chance this would happen, we would be vulnirable if aliens came and attacked. so sometimes i agree that fighting the middle east was not a great idea. but can you blame bush?
you bring up a good point. i have wondered myself if aliens are massing intergalactic troops on the dark side of the moon, waiting to attack when all the national guard is in iraq.
but as for mexico, why didnt we just invade mexcio instead of iraq? i hear there is oil down there, and it would have been easier to deploy the troops.
a final point i would like to make is i think mccain should run for president of UNICEF. he has some great ideas on feeding the world's hungry.
well i guess with aliens we dont have to worry that much because we have american heart and power and we would probably win no matter how many jets or invaders they attacked against us with i guess.
but i agree that mccain would be good president of UNICEF. althogh im not sure that feeding people should be a big priority. there are millions of people on the planet earth already, can we feed them all really? i think that some will have to get skinny or die.
i agree would be nice to invade mexico since there are not good vacation spots in us. but i dont agree that we should go there for oil. honestly how much oils do we use everyday? i almost never fill up my car with oil. maybe when i go get it serviced then ya you have a point. but its gas not oil that is causing me money problems. i hear that russia has a lot of gas maybe we should have gone there instead but i heard that its cold so probaly no great places to go vacation. so i guess its a ttoss up which one would be good to invade
i beg your pardon - i think you misunderstood me when i said i wanted mccain to be president of UNICEF. he is such a cold-hearted bastard that of course he would use UNICEF to stall food distribution to all those open mouths that are just feeding more people into poverty. that is the whole point!
mccain would solve overpopulation by just starving people. plain and simple.
and you are right, all that oil wont make a difference when it comes to gas. of course, being a vegan and all into tofurkey and all the other tofu wonders of the world, i dont have a car, i ride a bicycle, so im not up on all those fancy distinctions between oil, gas, steam, nuclear and whatever else you want to throw at me to show off.
just because you clearly have a degree in energy resources, you dont have to humiliate me with your knowledge. i know the sun is powered by candles and the moon landing was faked, so dont talk down to me.
i cant tell if you are joking because i dont have a degree in energy power. i just watch the news a lot and learned a lot in school. sorry i didnt get the joke about UNICF i didnt realize that mccain was like that. even though i read a lot and watch a lot of the news sometimes stories slip bby me.
you do seem pretty smart though so i give you props that you do a good job on these blogs. we just have different ways of looking at our country so i hope we can talk more
Intelligence, I'm impressed, you've attracted trolls to your forum! Let's try to keep this on topic, people.
I agree that once upon a time, McCain came off as a free thinker - the Maverick, as you say. I really liked him in 2000. Hell, I'll say that he's an improvement over Bush now. I just also happen to think that Obama is a much better improvement, that's all. Remember: a strict liberal voting record doesn't mean he doesn't think hard about the issues. It just means that his solutions fall on the left side of things.
That reminds me, while I'm at it:
I somehow found myself on the MoveOn mailing list a while back (I think I signed some petition or something). I agree with some of their stances; others I find far too rabid. I stay on the mailing list because I'm interested to see how their game is played, as it were. But the thing that most frequently annoys / angers me about them is the thing you mentioned - the wordplay. I've often thought of wordplay as one of the most reprehensible tactics used by the Bush administration. It saddens me to see this same cheap copout tactic used by the extremist liberal machine as well. You know me and words, though - I'm fascinated and appalled by the whole thing. I wonder if you wouldn't want to post on the phenomenon sometime? I'd like to hear your thoughts (on both sides of the issue of course).
Post a Comment