Smoking out McCain

[Etta Place]

There are a lot of legends surrounding John McCain - war hero, straight talker. This article smokes out McCain's actual views on the issues. The "maverick" reputation hides McCain's intrusive, statist agenda.

Do we need another T.R.?
If John McCain gets his way, you'll have your faith in the country restored ... or else!
By Matt Welch
Matt Welch is assistant editor of the editorial pages of The Times. matt.welch@latimes.com

November 26, 2006

YOU CAN READ 1,000 profiles of GOP presidential front-runner John McCain without encountering a single paragraph examining his core ideological philosophy. His career is filled with such distracting drama — torture at the Hanoi Hilton, noisy conversion to the campaign-finance-reform faith, political suicide on the Straight Talk Express — that by the time you're done with the highlights, and perhaps a few "maverick" anecdotes, time's up.

People are forever filling in the blanks with their own political fantasies. Third party candidate! John Kerry running mate! Far-right warmonger! Republican In Name Only! But with the announcement that the popular Arizona senator has formed his presidential exploratory committee, it's time for our long national guessing game to end.

Sifting through McCain's four bestselling books and nearly three decades of work on Capitol Hill, a distinct approach toward governance begins to emerge. And it's one that the electorate ought to be particularly worried about right now. McCain, it turns out, wants to restore your faith in the U.S. government by any means necessary, even if that requires thousands of more military deaths, national service for civilians and federal micromanaging of innumerable private transactions. He'll kick down the doors of boardroom and bedroom, mixing Democrats' nanny-state regulations with the GOP's red-meat paternalism in a dangerous brew of government activism. And he's trying to accomplish this, in part, for reasons of self-realization.

The first clue to McCain's philosophy lies in two seemingly irrelevant items of gossip: His father was a drunk, and his second wife battled addiction to pain pills. Neither would be worth mentioning except for the fact that McCain's books and speeches are shot through with the language and sentiment of 12-step recovery, especially Steps 1 (admitting the problem) and 2 (investing faith in a "Power greater than ourselves").

Like many alcoholics who haven't quite made it to Step 6 (becoming "entirely ready" to have these defects removed), McCain is disarmingly talented at admitting his narcissistic flaws. In his 2002 book "Worth the Fighting For," the senator is constantly confessing his problems of "selfishness," "immaturity," "ambition" and especially "temper," though he also makes clear that his outbreaks of anger can be justifiable and even laudable when channeled into "a cause greater than self-interest."

"A rebel without a cause is just a punk," he explains. "Whatever you're called — rebel, unorthodox, nonconformist, radical — it's all self-indulgence without a good cause to give your life meaning."

What is this higher power that ennobles McCain's crankiness? Just as it is for many soldiers, it's the belief that Americans "were meant to transform history" and that sublimating the individual in the service of that "common national cause" is the wellspring of honor and purpose. (But unlike most soldiers, McCain has been in a position to prod and even compel civilians to join his cause.)

Liberals and conservatives alike fail to truly reflect his views, McCain writes, because "neither emphasizes the obligations of a free people to the nation." His main governmental inspiration is Teddy Roosevelt, the "Eastern swell who became a man of the people," whose great accomplishment was "to summon the American people to greatness." In Roosevelt's code, McCain writes approvingly, it was "absolutely required that every loyal citizen take risks for the country's sake." This is an essentially militaristic view of citizenship, one that explains many of McCain's departures from partisan orthodoxy. Unlike traditional Republicans, he will gladly butt into the affairs of private industry if he perceives them to be undermining Americans' faith in government; unlike Democrats, he thinks the executive branch generally needs more power, not less.

"Our greatness," he wrote in "Worth the Fighting For," "depends upon our patriotism, and our patriotism is hardly encouraged when we cannot take pride in the highest public institutions." So, because steroids might be damaging the faith of young baseball fans, drug testing becomes a "transcendent issue," requiring threats of federal intervention unless pro sports leagues shape up. Hollywood's voluntary movie-rating system? A "smoke screen to provide cover for immoral and unconscionable business practices." Ultimate Fighting on Indian reservations? "Barbaric" and worthy of government pressure on cable TV companies. Negative political ads by citizen groups? They "do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue" and so must be banned for 60 days before an election if they mention a candidate by name.

If his issues line up with yours, and if you're not overly concerned by an activist federal government, McCain can be a great and sympathetic ally. But chances are he will eventually see a grave national threat in what you consider harmless, or he'll prescribe a remedy that you consider unconscionable. Nowhere is that more evident than in his ideas about the Iraq war.

McCain has been banging the drum from nearly Day One to put more boots on the ground in Iraq. "There are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this," he said on "Meet the Press" on Nov. 12, "but they all require the presence of additional troops." McCain is more inclined to start wars and increase troop levels than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. He has supported every U.S. military intervention of the last two decades, urged both presidents to rattle their sabers louder over North Korea and Iran, lamented the Pentagon's failure to intervene in Darfur and Rwanda and supported a general policy of "rogue state rollback." He's a fan of Roosevelt's Monroe-Doctrine-on-steroids stick-wielding in Latin America. And — like Bush — he thinks too much multilateralism can screw up a perfectly good war.

The price of all this war-making, in money and manpower, would be staggering; it's hard to imagine without a draft (McCain has long been a fan of mandatory national service, at the least). But the costs to his political ambitions may even be greater. The nation is in no mood for the war we've got now, let alone a doubling-down on Iraq and ramped-up unilateralist tough talk in the Middle East. The trend lines of public opinion on these counts are not pointing in McCain's direction.

One of the many charming confessions in "Worth the Fighting For" is McCain's complaint that the man he replaced in the Senate — Republican icon Barry Goldwater — was "never as affectionate as I would have liked." Small wonder.

Goldwater, a man who seemed to emanate from Arizona's dust, was the paragon of limited government, believing to his core that the feds shouldn't tell you how to run a business or whom you can sleep with. McCain, on the other hand, is a third-generation D.C. insider who carpetbagged his way into office, believing to his core that "national pride will not survive the people's contempt for government." On Nov. 7, those conflicting worldviews collided when Arizonans voted on whether to outlaw gay marriage. McCain campaigned in favor of the ban, in the name of "preserving the sanctity" of heterosexual unions. His exhortations went down to surprising defeat. Not, one suspects, for the last time.

Do we need another T.R.? - Los Angeles Times

[invssgt]

Oh, we desperately need another TR- but John Rino McCain sure ain't it.

[jblakk]

So if Obama wants our guns, hillary is....well. enought said.

Who else we got?

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by invssgt

Oh, we desperately need another TR- but John Rino McCain sure ain't it.

+1, but he'll do considering the horrible alternatives.

[SpringfieldXD.40]

Originally Posted by PackerfanXD

+1, but he'll do considering the horrible alternatives.

BIG +1...it's not about the options we WANT...but about the options we HAVE...

[jtkratzer]

I heard him do an interview yesterday and granted, it was talk, but what more can you go on? He sounded pretty conservative on the interview...he's ditching his views on McCain-Kennedy and sees securing the border as a priority, will not repeal the Bush tax cuts and actually is talking about extending more tax cuts, no government socialized healthcare, strong foreign policy in dealing with terror and Iran, and a couple other issues that were on track when it comes to conservatism.

We can all go pick apart a voting record and previous stances, but at least this man has taken stances.

Look how many votes Obama has opted out of simply to preserve his reputation and protect his political career so he doesn't have to be held accountable on his voting record...I call that the opposite of leadership. Leaders take stances, even on the tough issues, and then deal with those stances. I'm not saying McCain is the best candidate or has had the right stances on all the right issues, but I have to ask this, and without sounding like an a$$hole:

When the h3ll are we going to rally behind him? He's the only viable candidate that has a chance in this election that isn't going to destroy the country? Is he perfect? No. Has he voted the wrong way when it comes to conservatism? Yes. Is he the perfect conservative candidate? No. Is he better for this country than Obama or Clinton?

You absolutely bet your a$$ he is.

I'm all for disagreement and challenging the candidates views, but at the same time, when does enough become enough and we simply shrug our shoulders and say, "You know what? The other two aren't even red-blooded Americans who love this country, we don't have much of a choice when it comes to other options. Sure, we can all go in there and write in someone's name, but you and I both know that's a wasted vote when it comes to getting a non-socialist elected. I'm just tired of conservatives doing the job for the Democratic party when we constantly bash, tear down, and rip on the only possibility we have for a candidate who won't ruin this country with socialism. I'm not at all against free speech and discussing where he's at on the issues, but really am getting quite tired of reading all the McCain bashing. There is a big difference between discussing where we disagree on the issues and simply bashing him.

I have to ask you, how much credibility does President Bush have when it comest of foreign policy when you have the number of people in the House and the Senate, the two Democratic presidential hopefuls, the insulting cartoon show on TV with little Bush and little Chenney, and the amount of almost hate speech everywhere about him from the media to the general population? Don't you think that the tough leaders of foreign countries like Iran (funding and supporting those who oppose us in the Iraq war) and North Korea know this stuff and don't take him seriously?

How effective can McCain be if no one is supporting him before the general election even starts?

[SpringfieldXD.40]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

When the h3ll are we going to rally behind him? He's the only viable candidate that has a chance in this election that isn't going to destroy the country? Is he perfect? No. Has he voted the wrong way when it comes to conservatism? Yes. Is he the perfect conservative candidate? No. Is he better for this country than Obama or Clinton?

You absolutely bet your a$$ he is.

</p>+1,000,000,000,000,000

[jtkratzer]

I love how a select few on this site buy into the left wing liberal papers like the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the NY Times and take what's in those articles as truth and post them on this site. No research, no background work to find out if this stuff is actually true.

Read the conservative bloggers or listen to conservative talk radio and listen to the hosts present facts and actual data that blow more holes in these stories than Swiss cheese.



What the hell does his father's ALLEGED struggle with alcohol or his mother's ALLEGED struggle with prescription medication have to do with McCain as a president? Where is the information showing these are facts and not just allegations? If they're in his book and McCain said them himself, fine, but it doesn't say that in the article and until there is something proving it, I disregard it.

[ArmyGuy45]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

When the h3ll are we going to rally behind him? He's the only viable candidate that has a chance in this election that isn't going to destroy the country? Is he perfect? No. Has he voted the wrong way when it comes to conservatism? Yes. Is he the perfect conservative candidate? No. Is he better for this country than Obama or Clinton?

You absolutely bet your a$$ he is.

I.. ah.. im not to sure about this..
but.. ah... i think your trying to tell me something

[jtkratzer]

Liberals and conservatives alike fail to truly reflect his views, McCain writes, because "neither emphasizes the obligations of a free people to the nation." His main governmental inspiration is Teddy Roosevelt, the "Eastern swell who became a man of the people," whose great accomplishment was "to summon the American people to greatness." In Roosevelt's code, McCain writes approvingly, it was "absolutely required that every loyal citizen take risks for the country's sake." This is an essentially militaristic view of citizenship, one that explains many of McCain's departures from partisan orthodoxy.

This is my problem with this author, this is an article in the LA Times, from the media, who is supposed to report the news and be objective, not give their opinion and twist the news to accomplish their political agenda.

Every citizen should be willing to do things that are beneficial for the country as the US is the only country on the face of the planet where true freedom, or at least a spectacle of it still exists. We, as citizens, should be doing everything in our power to ensure it continues to exist. That's not militaristic, that's called taking pride in your country and ensuring the survival of your country.