Sunday, August 31, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
--I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.--MLK, August 28, 1963
It's this simple. John McCain has betrayed everything he was; his stance on major issues, His loyalty to his principles to embrace the Bush policies, His disdain for the negative, lying politics of the minions of Rove, his fellow servicemen from both the Viet Nam era and today all for political expediency.
Obama has learned throughout this campaign to adjust some of his stances in an interest of compromise, which was the main plank of his campaign. He has held true to his values. He has stood up to the Clintons and won while still allowing them their time in the light without bowing to the opinion that Hillary had to be his running mate even though all of it might have cost him votes. He has won over and chosen a running mate who was critical of him. A running mate whose experience could overshadow him but he still did it in interest of serving his country. He has remained loyal to his family and has been open about his mistakes. And finally, he has spoken so honestly and intelligently with us about race and division that all pundits have been shocked.
Please, I invite you to weigh the contents of their character and make your decision.
J.A.L.
It's this simple. John McCain has betrayed everything he was; his stance on major issues, His loyalty to his principles to embrace the Bush policies, His disdain for the negative, lying politics of the minions of Rove, his fellow servicemen from both the Viet Nam era and today all for political expediency.
Obama has learned throughout this campaign to adjust some of his stances in an interest of compromise, which was the main plank of his campaign. He has held true to his values. He has stood up to the Clintons and won while still allowing them their time in the light without bowing to the opinion that Hillary had to be his running mate even though all of it might have cost him votes. He has won over and chosen a running mate who was critical of him. A running mate whose experience could overshadow him but he still did it in interest of serving his country. He has remained loyal to his family and has been open about his mistakes. And finally, he has spoken so honestly and intelligently with us about race and division that all pundits have been shocked.
Please, I invite you to weigh the contents of their character and make your decision.
J.A.L.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
McCain's Mules
Since I’m already here, I’m going to stay in ancient Rome for at least one more posting and draw one more parallel.
If the only gaffe he made was that he referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn’t existed for well over a decade. Or if his only gaffe had been referring to the border between Iraq and Afghanistan as a very dangerous and important one (look up that border on a map. I’ll give you $100 if you can find it. Iran doesn’t count.)
If it were only one thing. For instance, if he had only conflated Sunnis and Shiites once, but he did it at least four times—twice when he was in the Middle East. If he had only reversed one position, but he has reversed several—sometimes within the same paragraph (offshore drilling, negative campaigning, raising taxes, etc.). If he had lost his temper only once but he seems to do it often. If he had only questioned Obama’s patriotism once, but he does it at every stump speech and then lies about it.
If it weren’t for the fact that he fought against a very good G.I. Bill, because it might make conditions so palatable for the serviceman that he might serve only one term of duty, and then stood up and took credit for its passing even though he wasn’t even present for the vote on it.
If he wasn’t constantly rewriting the history of the Iraqi war and his involvement with it.
If he hadn’t projected his own overriding ambition to be president, which he admitted to in his 2002 memoir, onto Barack Obama…
And, finally, but not completely, if he hadn’t agreed with every word a woman said at a town hall meeting two days ago—every word which included a demand to reinstate the military draft, I wouldn’t be reminded of this.
The possibility that it may be that his attention span ran short and he didn’t hear the draft comment only makes me think this more:
He reminds me of Gaius Marius.
Everything from the pack which my father carried on his back as a soldier in basic training to the G.I. Bill which educated him can be traced back to Gaius Marius.
The fact that my ability to write about such matters can be traced back through my education and station to that G.I. Bill, means that I owe something to Marius, so he has my respect and appreciation.
Along with this, and this marks the boundary of my respect, Marius was the elected leader of Rome six consecutive times. However this was not enough. He believed that he was destined by prophecy to be the elected leader for a seventh term. This belief consumed him throughout his final days until, eventually, he became so embittered by his opponents who blocked him in his old age from reaching his goal that he viewed them as personal enemies.
I’m leaving out many details but for the sake of brevity, I’ll simply write that , even though he was right to be offended by some of the arrogance of the higher born opponents—even though he was a very rich man himself—he was wrong in how he went about fulfilling his destiny.
He surrounded himself with old loyal friends, who, although they were troubled by his new actions and moods, still believed in that hero of former days and helped him to invade Rome and take his place as the seven-time elected leader of the city. Even though that final election was a complete sham.
What followed were five days of absolute terror where Marius had his soldiers search the streets for his enemies and execute them. Their heads were placed on pikes where they rotted until his death, by natural causes, a week later.
Historians have all concluded that all of his behavior during the last months of Marius’ life was a clear indication of advanced senility.
John McCain has my respect for who he was. This does not mean that I have to respect every action of the man he has become. And it is my duty as a citizen to question why he has changed so much.
J.A.L.
If the only gaffe he made was that he referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn’t existed for well over a decade. Or if his only gaffe had been referring to the border between Iraq and Afghanistan as a very dangerous and important one (look up that border on a map. I’ll give you $100 if you can find it. Iran doesn’t count.)
If it were only one thing. For instance, if he had only conflated Sunnis and Shiites once, but he did it at least four times—twice when he was in the Middle East. If he had only reversed one position, but he has reversed several—sometimes within the same paragraph (offshore drilling, negative campaigning, raising taxes, etc.). If he had lost his temper only once but he seems to do it often. If he had only questioned Obama’s patriotism once, but he does it at every stump speech and then lies about it.
If it weren’t for the fact that he fought against a very good G.I. Bill, because it might make conditions so palatable for the serviceman that he might serve only one term of duty, and then stood up and took credit for its passing even though he wasn’t even present for the vote on it.
If he didn’t imply that Barack Obama, a forty seven year-old man, is a youngster and then treat him with absolute contempt.
If he wasn’t constantly rewriting the history of the Iraqi war and his involvement with it.
If he had made only one joke about decimating our perceived enemies, or didn’t seem excited about the idea of getting in another cold war with Russia, I might cut him slack.
If he hadn’t projected his own overriding ambition to be president, which he admitted to in his 2002 memoir, onto Barack Obama…
And, finally, but not completely, if he hadn’t agreed with every word a woman said at a town hall meeting two days ago—every word which included a demand to reinstate the military draft, I wouldn’t be reminded of this.
The possibility that it may be that his attention span ran short and he didn’t hear the draft comment only makes me think this more:
He reminds me of Gaius Marius.
*********************************************************
Before eyes gloss over let me quickly describe Marius and then move on to my point. Well…really… my point is in the description.
Marius was a general in the generation prior to Julius Caesar. He completely reformed the Roman army in a way that allowed the poorest members of the society to better their standing by serving as a soldier. Because his soldiers were mainly poor men they could not hire servants to carry their belongings as had been the practice in the past. Thus they had to carry their own possessions. Thus they were nicknamed Marius’s Mules.
Everything from the pack which my father carried on his back as a soldier in basic training to the G.I. Bill which educated him can be traced back to Gaius Marius.
The fact that my ability to write about such matters can be traced back through my education and station to that G.I. Bill, means that I owe something to Marius, so he has my respect and appreciation.
Along with this, and this marks the boundary of my respect, Marius was the elected leader of Rome six consecutive times. However this was not enough. He believed that he was destined by prophecy to be the elected leader for a seventh term. This belief consumed him throughout his final days until, eventually, he became so embittered by his opponents who blocked him in his old age from reaching his goal that he viewed them as personal enemies.
I’m leaving out many details but for the sake of brevity, I’ll simply write that , even though he was right to be offended by some of the arrogance of the higher born opponents—even though he was a very rich man himself—he was wrong in how he went about fulfilling his destiny.
He surrounded himself with old loyal friends, who, although they were troubled by his new actions and moods, still believed in that hero of former days and helped him to invade Rome and take his place as the seven-time elected leader of the city. Even though that final election was a complete sham.
What followed were five days of absolute terror where Marius had his soldiers search the streets for his enemies and execute them. Their heads were placed on pikes where they rotted until his death, by natural causes, a week later.
Historians have all concluded that all of his behavior during the last months of Marius’ life was a clear indication of advanced senility.
***************************************************
I’m not claiming that I know for certain that John McCain is senile. And I am, of course, not claiming that McCain’s election would usher a reign of terror through the streets of America.
I’m not claiming that I know for certain that John McCain is senile. And I am, of course, not claiming that McCain’s election would usher a reign of terror through the streets of America.
But when every high ranking military officer claims that a draft would be a bad thing since part of the strength of the American military is that it is voluntary and incentive filled. When the only reason there would even be talk about a need for a draft is because of a disastrously costly war in Iraq which McCain has supported from the beginning and is willing to carry on for 10,000 years. And when you add this to the daily growing number of gaffes and mistakes he makes, like the ones I listed at the beginning, I think it is a fair question to ask whether he is or is not the man he was. And it is important that each voter consider all this before making his or her decision.
John McCain has my respect for who he was. This does not mean that I have to respect every action of the man he has become. And it is my duty as a citizen to question why he has changed so much.
J.A.L.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
On Iraq
It’s very strange to me how difficult it has been to write on this topic. I don’t quite know why, although I am fairly certain I will venture to guess more than once before I’m done writing.
I read a headline in HuffingtonPost.com which said that network evening news broadcasts are down to averaging about two minutes a week on coverage of whatever it is that is happening in Iraq. But this is not the reason.
Even though it seems every poll taken on what Americans list as the top issue in the November elections seems to separate the economy and the Iraq war, I cannot. They are inextricably linked.
And this is where I get embarrassed to write because my mind fills with quick allusions to just the type of historical references that get made fun of when they are mentioned because of their distance in the past and obscurity.
For instance; most people remember Richard I of England, if he is remembered at all, as the “Lionheart”, the hero king who returns in triumph at the end of Robin Hood or Ivanhoe. I think of him as the son of a bitch who spent all of six months of his nine year reign in England because he was busy fighting a Crusade of choice and being ransomed by a fellow Christian ruler. Both events bankrupted his country and led to making his successor, King John, vilified for finding it very difficult to refill the treasuries depleted by his action star brother.
More history flashes in my mind: My favorite Shakespeare play is Julius Caesar. Coriolanus is also high up there. At the suggestion of one of my acting teachers, I began reading Roman history to help me better portray the characters in those plays. I happened to stumble on to how Rome went from hopeful Republic to despotic empire.
Put simply, after the overthrow of the kings, the Romans first fought wars to defend their borders. They then realized that, if attacked by neighbors, it was better to simply conquer those neighbors and create a wider buffer between themselves and the outside world. Then they realized it was better to be proactive and, if a threat was perceived, it was best to just take the land of the perceived threat. Finally, by the time of Julius Caesar, the Roman form of government was recognized—by Romans—as being the most efficient and civilized way of doing things so why not conquer everybody?
Tada!
Empire.
Blessedly and somewhat annoyingly, a bit of comic relief pops into my mind when I think of the above Roman evolution and the “what did the Romans ever do for us scene from the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian” comes to mind:
What annoys me about the scene is the clearly stated argument of the other side—those in power in America who are wholeheartedly and unabashedly in support of this country being an empire. In fact, they will say that we already are one and should be acting like it.
If you think this is silly, I direct your attention to the following quote from “Newsweek”:
“Let's face it: Americans have always made crummy imperialists. A century ago Teddy Roosevelt complained that "America lacked the stomach for empire." A senior White House official echoed that lament early in the Iraq occupation, noting that America has the power of a true empire, like Rome or like Britain in the 19th century, but not the taste for acting like one. "Look at us in Iraq—how much difficulty we have in saying we will anoint people to run the country. Does anyone think the Romans or the Brits would have been deterred?" he grumbled.”
June 25 Newseek, 2007
Michael Hirsh
The Gaza effect
The quote contains both the hope I have for this country coupled with the dread I feel for the future of this country. History has taught that once a country whole-heartedly goes down the road of empire, there is no turning back. It also goes on to teach that “that way madness lies”; decadence, hubris, and self destruction.
The hope lies in that first sentence. Up to the present, Americans seem to have a natural revulsion to imperialism. The Neo-Cons tactic has been to sneak it by us by using Frank Luntz inspired, nice-sounding synonyms to describe what our government is doing. The only problem is, as the above quote shows, they know full well that they are trying to build the next Roman Empire behind the synonym façade.
These are very smart, devious people who ultimately believe that Americans will just accept that they live in an empire someday. At that time, they can dispose of the nice words and say, “See. It’s not so bad is it? Yeah, it will lead to our ultimate destruction but at least we’ll all be famous”
Thus you have statements like McCain saying that we could stay in Iraq for 10,000 years. If nobody’s getting shot, why not? It’s what empires do.
In the weeks since I began writing this piece, Barack Obama has attempted to clarify his stance on pulling out of Iraq. Conditions on the ground play a part in the timeline. Sixteen months is the goal. Unforeseen circumstances may alter it.
Critics on both sides have been attacking him for this. Seeing it as an opportunity to accuse him of “flip-flopping.” It’s not. It is however, in text, similar to what McCain has said. So it becomes necessary to think in terms of nuance and the question to ask is which one of these candidates has a mind to empire and which has a mind to world community?
The recent responses of both candidates to Russia’s invasion of Georgia can also be used in this assessment.
Make no mistake about it. After years, even centuries, of playing with the idea, it must be accepted that this particular election is as far as foreign policy is concerned, a referendum as to whether we will consciously pursue the path of empire.
The Neo-Cons will maintain a more serious version of the Monty Python clip-- That empires have always brought great advancement to the world. They will leave out the torture, oppression, and moral decay.
World community types—the direction in which I lean—maintain that it might be time to consciously pursue a new path.
The fact is the United States MUST NOT and CAN NOT become an empire. To willingly pursue that path is to finally and completely abandon what the most venerated Founders of this country first intended: a country that would be a shining example of freedom to the world.
The reason why we can not is simple: China. I could include others, like the European Union and Russia, India, and the Middle East, but really, one need say no more than China. When we talk about how America is the “Greatest country in the world”, China giggles a little bit. We may be further along on the humane scale, but greatness is kind of an all-encompassing statement.
Make no mistake about it. The invasion of Iraq was a long hoped for first step in a grand scheme by the Neo-Cons to force the U.S. into the role of empire. The claim being that we were the lone World Power. It is only logical that we should now rule the place. It’s all a game of influence to them. And it drives them crazy when Obama and others speak about being citizens of the world. So they will do anything to distort that sincere and hopeful sentiment.
The United States has a great deal to offer the world, but other nations of the world have a great deal to offer us as well. We have a great deal to offer, but not as supreme ruler.
If one traces the McCain campaign’s comments on Iraq and foreign relations in general, you will find jokes about bombing Iran, as well as killing them with cigarettes. You will find comments about staying in Iraq for 50, 100, or even 10,000 years. You will find him comfortably drawing a parallel between the Iraq situation and the permanent bases we have in places like Japan and South Korea. In recent weeks, he has responded to every crisis with sabre-rattling and the belittling of other nations who would stand against us. I don’t think it would be a stretch when all this is considered that his intention would be to eventually set up a permanent U.S. military base in the nation of Georgia as well as Ukraine. It seems pretty clear that this is what he has a mind to.
I have had conversations with Germans, South Koreans, Japanese and other nationalities who live in countries with U.S. military bases. Some, especially the Koreans, are very appreciative of the protection. Some are as annoyed by the presence of U.S. troops in their country as I would be at the thought of a Saudi Arabian base in Skokie. Either way, I am neither comfortable with countries who are encouraged to be complacent with our presence nor unsettled by it.
Although I have not heard Obama’s campaign pushing for vacating bases that are already established, I do have every reason to believe that he nor his administration would have a mind to establishing more bases reminiscent of despotic empires of the past.
There are certainly historical arguments in favor of what the Neo-cons, who now seem to be in complete control of McCain and his campaign, want.
There are also arguments against which point out the destructive price, both outward and inward, that such a bent demands.
It is up to each voter to take this into consideration when placing their vote. But let it not be mistaken that each vote in large part is a vote for or against the boldfaced quest for empire.
J.A.L.
I read a headline in HuffingtonPost.com which said that network evening news broadcasts are down to averaging about two minutes a week on coverage of whatever it is that is happening in Iraq. But this is not the reason.
Even though it seems every poll taken on what Americans list as the top issue in the November elections seems to separate the economy and the Iraq war, I cannot. They are inextricably linked.
And this is where I get embarrassed to write because my mind fills with quick allusions to just the type of historical references that get made fun of when they are mentioned because of their distance in the past and obscurity.
For instance; most people remember Richard I of England, if he is remembered at all, as the “Lionheart”, the hero king who returns in triumph at the end of Robin Hood or Ivanhoe. I think of him as the son of a bitch who spent all of six months of his nine year reign in England because he was busy fighting a Crusade of choice and being ransomed by a fellow Christian ruler. Both events bankrupted his country and led to making his successor, King John, vilified for finding it very difficult to refill the treasuries depleted by his action star brother.
More history flashes in my mind: My favorite Shakespeare play is Julius Caesar. Coriolanus is also high up there. At the suggestion of one of my acting teachers, I began reading Roman history to help me better portray the characters in those plays. I happened to stumble on to how Rome went from hopeful Republic to despotic empire.
Put simply, after the overthrow of the kings, the Romans first fought wars to defend their borders. They then realized that, if attacked by neighbors, it was better to simply conquer those neighbors and create a wider buffer between themselves and the outside world. Then they realized it was better to be proactive and, if a threat was perceived, it was best to just take the land of the perceived threat. Finally, by the time of Julius Caesar, the Roman form of government was recognized—by Romans—as being the most efficient and civilized way of doing things so why not conquer everybody?
Tada!
Empire.
Blessedly and somewhat annoyingly, a bit of comic relief pops into my mind when I think of the above Roman evolution and the “what did the Romans ever do for us scene from the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian” comes to mind:
What annoys me about the scene is the clearly stated argument of the other side—those in power in America who are wholeheartedly and unabashedly in support of this country being an empire. In fact, they will say that we already are one and should be acting like it.
If you think this is silly, I direct your attention to the following quote from “Newsweek”:
“Let's face it: Americans have always made crummy imperialists. A century ago Teddy Roosevelt complained that "America lacked the stomach for empire." A senior White House official echoed that lament early in the Iraq occupation, noting that America has the power of a true empire, like Rome or like Britain in the 19th century, but not the taste for acting like one. "Look at us in Iraq—how much difficulty we have in saying we will anoint people to run the country. Does anyone think the Romans or the Brits would have been deterred?" he grumbled.”
June 25 Newseek, 2007
Michael Hirsh
The Gaza effect
The quote contains both the hope I have for this country coupled with the dread I feel for the future of this country. History has taught that once a country whole-heartedly goes down the road of empire, there is no turning back. It also goes on to teach that “that way madness lies”; decadence, hubris, and self destruction.
The hope lies in that first sentence. Up to the present, Americans seem to have a natural revulsion to imperialism. The Neo-Cons tactic has been to sneak it by us by using Frank Luntz inspired, nice-sounding synonyms to describe what our government is doing. The only problem is, as the above quote shows, they know full well that they are trying to build the next Roman Empire behind the synonym façade.
These are very smart, devious people who ultimately believe that Americans will just accept that they live in an empire someday. At that time, they can dispose of the nice words and say, “See. It’s not so bad is it? Yeah, it will lead to our ultimate destruction but at least we’ll all be famous”
Thus you have statements like McCain saying that we could stay in Iraq for 10,000 years. If nobody’s getting shot, why not? It’s what empires do.
In the weeks since I began writing this piece, Barack Obama has attempted to clarify his stance on pulling out of Iraq. Conditions on the ground play a part in the timeline. Sixteen months is the goal. Unforeseen circumstances may alter it.
Critics on both sides have been attacking him for this. Seeing it as an opportunity to accuse him of “flip-flopping.” It’s not. It is however, in text, similar to what McCain has said. So it becomes necessary to think in terms of nuance and the question to ask is which one of these candidates has a mind to empire and which has a mind to world community?
The recent responses of both candidates to Russia’s invasion of Georgia can also be used in this assessment.
Make no mistake about it. After years, even centuries, of playing with the idea, it must be accepted that this particular election is as far as foreign policy is concerned, a referendum as to whether we will consciously pursue the path of empire.
The Neo-Cons will maintain a more serious version of the Monty Python clip-- That empires have always brought great advancement to the world. They will leave out the torture, oppression, and moral decay.
World community types—the direction in which I lean—maintain that it might be time to consciously pursue a new path.
The fact is the United States MUST NOT and CAN NOT become an empire. To willingly pursue that path is to finally and completely abandon what the most venerated Founders of this country first intended: a country that would be a shining example of freedom to the world.
The reason why we can not is simple: China. I could include others, like the European Union and Russia, India, and the Middle East, but really, one need say no more than China. When we talk about how America is the “Greatest country in the world”, China giggles a little bit. We may be further along on the humane scale, but greatness is kind of an all-encompassing statement.
Make no mistake about it. The invasion of Iraq was a long hoped for first step in a grand scheme by the Neo-Cons to force the U.S. into the role of empire. The claim being that we were the lone World Power. It is only logical that we should now rule the place. It’s all a game of influence to them. And it drives them crazy when Obama and others speak about being citizens of the world. So they will do anything to distort that sincere and hopeful sentiment.
The United States has a great deal to offer the world, but other nations of the world have a great deal to offer us as well. We have a great deal to offer, but not as supreme ruler.
If one traces the McCain campaign’s comments on Iraq and foreign relations in general, you will find jokes about bombing Iran, as well as killing them with cigarettes. You will find comments about staying in Iraq for 50, 100, or even 10,000 years. You will find him comfortably drawing a parallel between the Iraq situation and the permanent bases we have in places like Japan and South Korea. In recent weeks, he has responded to every crisis with sabre-rattling and the belittling of other nations who would stand against us. I don’t think it would be a stretch when all this is considered that his intention would be to eventually set up a permanent U.S. military base in the nation of Georgia as well as Ukraine. It seems pretty clear that this is what he has a mind to.
I have had conversations with Germans, South Koreans, Japanese and other nationalities who live in countries with U.S. military bases. Some, especially the Koreans, are very appreciative of the protection. Some are as annoyed by the presence of U.S. troops in their country as I would be at the thought of a Saudi Arabian base in Skokie. Either way, I am neither comfortable with countries who are encouraged to be complacent with our presence nor unsettled by it.
Although I have not heard Obama’s campaign pushing for vacating bases that are already established, I do have every reason to believe that he nor his administration would have a mind to establishing more bases reminiscent of despotic empires of the past.
There are certainly historical arguments in favor of what the Neo-cons, who now seem to be in complete control of McCain and his campaign, want.
There are also arguments against which point out the destructive price, both outward and inward, that such a bent demands.
It is up to each voter to take this into consideration when placing their vote. But let it not be mistaken that each vote in large part is a vote for or against the boldfaced quest for empire.
J.A.L.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
AT A LOSS
A couple of weeks ago I began writing something I’ve been meaning to write for a long time regarding my conclusions on the war in Iraq. I mention this to relieve my own guilt that I have not posted in so long.
I still plan to write that piece. It’s just that while in the midst of writing, Barack Obama made his comments about “refining” his statements on Iraq. My concern is that the piece I was writing would read like an apology for Obama rather than as the view I had come to all on my own.
The truth is that I am confused about what to write at the present time, yet I feel compelled to write something If for no other reason than to get back in the habit.
I had become so tired of commenting on the campaign tactics used during the primary season and I had looked forward to writing about the real issues—well at least some of the real issues.
Regardless of what I had written about my experience in 1988, I had actually begun to have a little hope that this campaign might be more substantive than that one. Instead, it is 1988 in hyperdrive.
Back in November of last year I had come to the conclusion that the only hope for this country to regain some sanity was to have Barack Obama and John McCain be the candidates for the two major parties. For one, the intelligence of his rhetoric, for the other, the strength of his character, I had believed would be enough to overcome the entrenched slime machines of their respective parties. This has not been the case.
Possibly the most heartbreaking moment came when I watched McCain’s most recent interview on “This Week”. He spent roughly two thirds of the interview putting forth a practiced but poorly executed sneer and chuckle as a preface to every—and I mean every—statement he made regarding Obama. He then dropped the forced condescension and spent the final third of the segment talking about his qualifications and maintaining that he was the candidate with a history of “reaching across the aisle”. I would have believed him and even though I still disagreed with his policies and would not have voted for him, I would still have felt comfortable with the thought of him being my president had it not been for those first two thirds.
In the weeks since, he and his minions have continued to belittle the accomplishments of Barack Obama and he has recently embraced the tactics of completely lying about things that Obama and his supporters have said.
Admittedly this is far from the best thing I’ve written on this blog so it is best that I just get to my point: I had looked forward to at most liking and at least having respect for the Republican candidate in this go round. All of that is gone. John McCain is nothing but a sad shell of what I thought he was. Indeed the signs have been there for at least four years that he didn’t really have the integrity he claimed to have. He had a chance to truly serve his country, as he had done in his youth, four years ago when his friend, John Kerry, ran against the guy who attempted to destroy him on a personal level. I’m not saying McCain should have been Kerry’s running mate or agreed to serve in his cabinet, even though that would have been an amazingly heroic thing to do. But at the very least, he could have stood up for Kerry when the same machine that wrecked his gravitas began to do the same thing to the Democratic nominee.
But no.
John McCain showed then and there and in every moment since that his country and the people of it are not his priority. His priority is his decrepit party and winning at all costs.
I have heard him claim that he is just exhibiting a sense of humor and I guess he is. It’s the same sense of humor exhibited by little boys who pull legs off of grasshoppers or older boys who shake their heads and smile slyly at a racial joke.
Sadly, it looks like these tactics may win him the White House.
What a pity.
J.A.L.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
