In a post entitled "Why I'm a Mitt Man," Matt Y. rapidly morphs from a quasi-defense of Mitt to what may very well be the best takedown of McCain I've ever seen:
He's flighty as hell. For years, he's an orthodox conservative. Then he's an orthodox conservative who also supports this one ill-conceived campaign finance restriction. Then he's running for president. Now suddenly Pat Roberston and Jerry Falwell are forces of evil. Then Bush beats him with some sleazy campaign stunts. Now he wants to regulate carbon emissions! And import drugs from Canada! Bush sucks, he's evil and corrupt and incompetent and wrecking the country and oh he's up for re-election well of course I'll strongly support him etc., etc,. etc. Then the establishment warms up to him so he warms up to the establishment. So now he supports the Bush tax cuts and the Bush plan for Iraq and the Bush immigration plan. Oh wait voters don't like the Bush immigration plan? Well then I've learned my lesson and I was never for amnesty and by the way I'm now against carbon curbs. But you know what's great? The surge. And Joe Lieberman in his crazy uncle phase. And David Petraeus. Petraeus is so great that I think civilian control of the military is obsolete and I won't say whether or not I think tax cuts increase revenue but let's cut spending a lot, eh?
In other words, on eighty percent of issues McCain seems to me to be making it up as he goes along. At his best, he's cravenly flip-flopping according to the political headwinds. But other times, he just seems to be acting on whim or out of pique. Or he's coming to middle-ground positions that don't make sense, like "global warming is real and we should stop it, but only through measures that wouldn't actually stop it!" The rest of the time, he's just really, really, really committed to the military and to militarism. Worst of all, like all the other candidates for president, his personal level of experience with foreign policy issues is minimal, but unlike the other candidates he doesn't seem to realize this believing instead that his enthusiasm about the military and for soldiers and soldiering constitutes a close substitute for having real ideas about international relations.
This is what has always baffled me about McCain's "maverick" reputation. If by "maverick" you mean unprincipled flip-flopper, than OK. But that's clearly not what people mean when they use the term. They mean, as near as I can tell, precisely the opposite. And yet amazingly there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that in his record. And by no evidence, I mean no evidence.
But he is "shoot straight" and "talks tough," his supporters say! To which I respond, "so what?" What the hell does shooting and speaking have to do with being principled? The fact that you can talk a good game tells us absolutely nothing about how you play. Nothing. Art Monk and Michael Irvin are both in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but their speaking styles couldn't possibly be more different. Forget causation; the two aren't even correlated!
"But McCain survived torture in Vietnam," you say. "Certainly that must count for something." And no doubt it would if we were electing the next man to play Rambo. But we're not. We're electing the President of the United States, not picking the best man to run a retirement home for action heroes.
UPDATE: As if on cue, a perfect example of McCain's lack of principles. In a new anti-Romney mailer in Sout Carolina, McCain hits Mitt for his lack of enthusiasm for the Bush tax cuts. No mention is made, of course, of the fact that Sen. McCain actually voted against said tax cuts.
Such a maverick, that McCain! Such a straight shooter!
Subscribe to this blog's feed
