McCain: 'Americans should argue about this war'

[The Postmaster General]

I always have said that McCain would have a great chance of getting my vote. It's this sort of stuff that I like about him. It seems to me that he would make a better uniter than everyone we've had in my lifetime.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/13/mccain.address/index.html

LYNCHBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain on Saturday said Americans should argue about the war in Iraq.

The Republican senator from Arizona weighed in the conflict that has killed more than 2,400 U.S. troops in a commencement address at Liberty University, the school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

As a candidate in the 2000 presidential race, McCain had lambasted Falwell as an agent of intolerance. The former Vietnam prisoner of war, a potential presidential hopeful in 2008, has put aside his differences with the minister, who has large following among Christian conservatives. (Watch how McCain is mending fences with the religious right -- 2:52)

"Americans should argue about this war," McCain said. While he defended his support of the Iraq invasion, he said people must engage in debate on the subject.

"If an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility.

"But I ask that you consider the possibility that I, too, am trying to meet my responsibilities, to follow my conscience, to do my duty as best as I can, as God has given me light to see that duty."

McCain said Americans have more that unite than divide them.

"We need only to look to the enemy who now confronts us, and the benighted ideals to which Islamic extremists pledge allegiance -- their disdain for the rights of man, their contempt for innocent human life -- to appreciate how much unites us," he said.

"We have fought among ourselves before in our history, over big things and small, with worse vitriol and bitterness than we experience today," McCain said, adding "but let us remember, we are not enemies. We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy. We have nothing to fear from each other."

While acknowledging the war's human and economic costs, McCain said that "should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred."

Besides the war, the senator touched on other big issues of the era -- the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region, the Rwandan genocide from the last decade and the war on terror.

After the commencement speech, Falwell told CNN that if McCain "continues on the track he's on now, he in fact could co-opt the religious conservatives of the country, in the same way President Bush did, to help him to the White House."

"Anybody but Hillary," said Falwell, referring to U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, the former first lady who has been mentioned as a possible Democratic candidate for president.

Falwell said that he and McCain argue "a good bit." "While we are both pro-life, pro-family, [on] a lot of things, like global warming and other issues ... we discuss pretty aggressively. But we do it as friends. And I very much respect the senator," he said.

He said McCain or others have a chance to gain the support of evangelical Christians if "he or she espouses the same values that we espouse,"

He also mentioned other "good people," such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee; Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania; and Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia.

[The Heart Collector]

So basically McCain wants to win, so he's pandering to a religious right that deserves nothing but scorn. What a true politician.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
So basically McCain wants to win, so he's pandering to a religious right that deserves nothing but scorn. What a true politician.


He's always supported the war, and religion. If anything he should be accused of pandering to the left.

However, I think we've all agreed on separate occasions that it's pretty lame to place everything as a left and right issue.

It seems that he should be commended for telling people it's alright to argue about how we want the country run, and that the bigger problem is when people are made to feel they should keep quiet. This is a great change from the past years when people were made to feel unpatriotic by pro-war supporters. McCain is saying that arguing what you want for the country is anything but unpatriotic.

I really don't see how you got what you did from his telling the "religious right" that people should be able to argue with him. It seems quite the opposite.

[Thrizzle]

He's looking more and more like a typical politician which has been making me less inclined to vote for him....but im not sure if thats who he truly is or if its an "ends justifies the means" kind of strategy.

[bigred760]

I've always liked McCain; I was kind of upset that he didn't get the Republican nomination in 2000. It always seemed to me that he's for freedom of speech and that he's hoped that people would speak their minds. I don't see him pandering to one side or the other, but then again, I rarely look :D.

[The Postmaster General]

No one is explaining why the think what he said was being a 'typical politician' - it's like you all agree that we should be pissed off at each other for disagreeing and not trying to work together to solve problems, which pretty much contradicts everything that's been agreed on in all of our political discussions. He's always supported the war, and he's always said these types of things.

If McCain is being so typical, how's come there aren't more politicians out there saying this stuff?

[<3mekthx]

I don't really see anything wrong or typical about what McCain is saying here.

I see no partisan remarks, no jabs, no red meat for the audience.

I know that it's early, but to me he seems to be the least partisan candidate thats running in 08.

[Thrizzle]

I was mainly talking about him speaking at Liberty alongside Falwell and his obvious vote pandering of late. But again, Im not sure that its any indication of how he'll act in the white house.

And McCain thinks we should debate the war? Genius idea. Wasnt that always just common sense?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
And McCain thinks we should debate the war? Genius idea. Wasnt that always just common sense?


So because he's interjecting some common sense (something you agree with) he still deserves ridicule?

You'd have to of been living under a rock to think that the ability to engage in civil arguments is active in America, when concerning the war.

http://www.now.org/issues/right/031402patriot.html


I also don't know what you mean of his vote pandering of late. The right has been accusing him of pandering for a long time now, he's worked with quite a few of our people, and now it's like since he's getting good with people we disagree with, it's a problem.

I think we should be electing officials that are going to work with all people, not just the ones we agree with.

[electriclite]

Pandering, meaning that in 2000 when he was vying for the Republican nomination for the presidency he openly called the Religious Right something on par with a great evil threatening the furture of the country, thus of course killing his chances of getting the nomination, and not so coincidentally having it go to the "devout" G.W. Bush.

Obviously McCain has learned that you can't be a Republican nominee for the presidency and knock the Religious Right. Fast forward 5 1/2 years and now here he is speaking as a guest at Jerry Falwell's university, and is reluctant to speak ill of him openly. Clearly this is not something he would've done back in 2000. So why is he doing it now?

In the early years of GW's presidency it was easy to see McCain had contempt for the man. I recall many early visits he made to Late Night with Conan O'Brien where he made quick swipes at GW. And the president wasn't very fond of McCain either, and has been noted as calling him, "a real pain in the neck", one of his more restrained swipes. Once again, fast forward and he's almost emphatically defending the man, who years prior he could barely contain his criticism of.

It clearly looks, to me, that he is trying to create a political buttress for an obvious re-run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, therefore coming off as a "typical politician"

[The Postmaster General]

Has he changed his political views or his stands on any issue, electriclite? To me, that would be the difference between pandering and reaching out.

[EVILxxx]

McCain has always been very moderate, so this whole statement isn't out of character for him at all.

"Anybody but Hillary," said Falwell, referring to U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, the former first lady who has been mentioned as a possible Democratic candidate for president.
Ahmen.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So because he's interjecting some common sense (something you agree with) he still deserves ridicule?
You'd have to of been living under a rock to think that the ability to engage in civil arguments is active in America, when concerning the war.


It's something that every democratic candidate would agree with with the exception of Zell Miller.


I also don't know what you mean of his vote pandering of late. The right has been accusing him of pandering for a long time now, he's worked with quite a few of our people, and now it's like since he's getting good with people we disagree with, it's a problem.

I think we should be electing officials that are going to work with all people, not just the ones we agree with.

He's looking like a typical politician, which im sick of. Obviously theres more to be seen and heard, but for now im still on the fence about him. (and supporting al gore)

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
He's looking like a typical politician, which im sick of. Obviously theres more to be seen and heard, but for now im still on the fence about him. (and supporting al gore)


True, but like I mentioned to electriclite, I need to see how he's changed position politically (not personally or his MO) to say he's pandering, and I'm not seeing that. I'm not saying that he isn't, but just that I don't consider making an amend as pandering.

I wasn't aware of Gore possibly throwing his hat in for 2008, but looking at a Gore search on google, all I have to say is Hell Yeah! I'm among those who believe that he won in 2000. I voted on the butterfly ballot, and there's no doubt it was confusing, arguably intentional, but no doubt confusing.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
So basically McCain wants to win, so he's pandering to a religious right that deserves nothing but scorn. What a true politician.

No more so than any other dolt we've had in the White House, but I can see where it gets old. I'd really like to see Americans vote for a third party candidate so the big two have to take a hard look at themselves. I've said it before: America needs to remember that there are more than two choices on the ballot.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by jeo4
No more so than any other dolt we've had in the White House, but I can see where it gets old. I'd really like to see Americans vote for a third party candidate so the big two have to take a hard look at themselves. I've said it before: America needs to remember that there are more than two choices on the ballot.

That's true, but even if a third-party dude is elected, how well will he work alongside the congress and senate?

I think more of these third-party folks need to start being voted into the house of reps before we go stamping one into the oval office.

[jeo4]

I definitely agree. An infusion of new ideas into both houses will make such a transition smoother, reduce culture shock.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
True, but like I mentioned to electriclite, I need to see how he's changed position politically (not personally or his MO) to say he's pandering, and I'm not seeing that. I'm not saying that he isn't, but just that I don't consider making an amend as pandering.

There's a difference between 'making an amend' and pandering. McCain calling Jerry Falwell (and rightfully so) an "agent of intolerance", and then fucking supporting that piece of shit is pandering.

I quote, "Gov. Bush swung far to the right and sought out the base support of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those aren’t the ideas that I think are good for the Republican Party".

So now he feels fine with that. Either he's doing it for the votes, which is bad, or he genuinely feels Falwell's support is important, which is even worse.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
There's a difference between 'making an amend' and pandering. McCain calling Jerry Falwell (and rightfully so) an "agent of intolerance", and then fucking supporting that piece of shit is pandering.

I quote, "Gov. Bush swung far to the right and sought out the base support of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those aren’t the ideas that I think are good for the Republican Party".

So now he feels fine with that. Either he's doing it for the votes, which is bad, or he genuinely feels Falwell's support is important, which is even worse.

Has McCain swung to the far right?

It's only pandering if he's changed positions politically to cater to Falwell's crowd. There's nothing 'panderous' about speaking with someone, or to their supporters about something you believe in. That's called telling people what you believe in. McCain, when speaking of Bush, was referring to him basing all of his policies to cater to the right, or probably more so in exploiting their beliefs to gain votes.

You still haven't shown how McCain has changed his platforms, or positions to pander to Falwell's crowd. If McCain started supporting the positions he previously disagreed with Falwell on, that seems more like pandering.

You're basically comparing Bush's right-leaning policies created to gain support for the religious right to McCain telling the religious right about his policies.

People give Bush SOOOO much shit for locking himself up and refusing to speak to left-leaning organizations - saying how he's out of touch with half the country, and how he refuses to acknowledge the left's complaints. And here you have someone who does speak to people he disagrees with, and you call it pandering.

All I'm getting from all of this is: "Refusing to reach out to the left = asshole, bad politician, not for the people" but "Reaching out to the religious right = pandering."

Double standard, it seems.

[The Heart Collector]

LOL. Are you *seriously* trying to argue that poor 'ole John McCain is just trying his best to inform Falwell and his ilk of his awesome policies, you know, just startin' some meaningful and sharing dialog?

Nigga, please. McCain is just a politician, just like them all. The only reason I'm giving him shit is because of that misguided idea that John McCain is America's next savior who's going to unite everyone and he just AINT LIKE THE REST OF THE POLITICIANS, HE'S HONEST GODDAMMIT and here he is, talking to Jerry Falwell. This is politics. McCain isn't talking to Jerry Falwell to "inform him of his politics", he's doing it so that a bunch of zealots see him with Jerry Falwell and think "damn, he aint that bad".

He called the man a goddamned 'agent of intolerance'. What's his excuse? 'Oh no, now that I've met him he's KEWL'? Pfft, give me a break.

[The Postmaster General]

Look, I just don't know what your problem with the man is. He shits kittens and pisses rainbows, man.

Okay, fair enough. Maybe I suffer a bit from relative-itis, in that I'm looking at McCain as compared to other politicians, so he's not that bad. I respect where you are coming from and see what you're saying.