http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/348434_mccainonline24.html?source=mypi Don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain JOHANN HARI A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press, the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being billed as the Republican liberals can live with. He is "a bipartisan progressive," "a principled hard liberal," "a decent man" -- in the words of liberal newspapers. His fragile new frontrunner status as we go into Super Tuesday is being seen as something to cautiously welcome, a kick to the rotten Republican establishment. But the truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear. Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. McCain is third-generation Navy royalty, raised from a young age to be a senior figure in the armed forces, like his father and grandfather before him. He was sent to one of the most elite boarding schools in America, then to a naval academy where he ranked 894th of 899 students in ability. He used nepotism to get ahead: When he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider. He later married the heiress to a multi-million dollar fortune. Right up to his twenties, he remained a strikingly violent man, "ready to fight at the drop of a hat," according to his biographer Robert Timberg. This rage seems to be at the core of his personality: describing his own childhood, McCain has written: "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out." But he claims he was transformed by his experiences in Vietnam -- a war he still defends as "noble" and "winnable," if only it had been fought harder. (More than three million Vietnamese died; how much harder could it be?) His plane was shot down on a bombing raid over Hanoi, and he was captured and tortured for five years. To this day, he cannot lift his arms high enough to comb his own hair. On his release, he used second his wife's fortune to run to as a Republican senator. He was a standard-issue Reaganite corporate Republican n until the Keating Five corruption scandal consumed him. In 1987, it was revealed that McCain, along with four other senators, had taken huge campaign donations from a fraudster called Charles Keating. In return they pressured government regulators not to look too hard into Keating's affairs, allowing him to commit even more fraud. McCain later admitted: "I did it for no other reason than I valued [Keating's] support." McCain took the only course that could possibly preserve his reputation: He turned the scandal into a debate about the political system, rather than his own personal corruption. He said it showed how "we need to drive the special interests out of Washington," and became a high-profile campaigner for campaign finance reform. But privately, his behavior hasn't changed much. For example, in 2000 he lobbied federal regulators hard on behalf of a major campaign contributor, Paxson Communications, in an act the regulators spluttered was "highly unusual." He has never won an election without outspending his opponent. But McCain has distinguished himself most as an über-hawk on foreign policy. To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at a recent rally, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." He says North Korea should be threatened with "extinction." McCain has mostly opposed using U.S. power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia -- but he is very keen to use it for great power imperialism. He learned this philosophy from his father and his granddad Slew, who fought in the Philippine wars at the turn of the 20th century, where he was part of a mission to crush the local resistance to the U.S. invasion. They did it by forcing the entire population from their homes at gunpoint into "protection zones," and gunning down anybody over the age of 10 who was found outside them. Today, McCain dreamily describes this as "an exotic adventure" which his grandfather "generally enjoyed." Then McCain's father, John, led the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, at a time when there was a conflict on the Caribbean island. On one side, there were forces loyal to Juan Bosch, the democratically elected left-wing president who was committed to land redistribution and helping the poor. On the other side, there were forces who had overthrown the elected government and looked nostalgically to the playboy tyranny of Rafael Trujillo. John McCain Sr. intervened to ensure the supporters of the democratic government were crushed, bragging that it taught the natives "how to behave themselves." He saw this as part of a wider mission, where the U.S. would take over Britain's role as a "world empire." These beliefs drive McCain today. He brags he would be happy for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares: "I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry Kissinger; I'm proud of it." His most thorough biographer -- and recent supporter -- Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's program for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt...[it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practiced." With him as president, we could expect much more aggressive destabilization of Venezuela and Bolivia -- and more. So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: He proposed a program to legalize the 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologized for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions but only if China and India can also be locked into the system. He is somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right (while supporting a ban on abortion and gay marriage). It is a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that these are considered signs of liberalism, rather than basic humanity. Yet these sprinklings of sanity -- onto a very extreme program -- are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as "bipartisan" and "centrist." Will this be enough to put white hair into the White House? At the moment, he has considerably higher positive ratings than Clinton, and beats her in some match-up polls. If we don't start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism.
isn't this guy a European "journalist"? I'm sure there are valid points in the article, but I'm really not going ot take the word of someone from Europe too seriously.
Wow...a liberal hack from the Seattle Post Intelligencer doesn't like a Republican candidate. What a shock. Wait while I have a coronary from the shock. In other shocking news, a conservative hack somewhere is writing about why he doesn't like Barack Obama. The author of this piece can talk up McCain's problems from when he was in his twenties all he would like to, but we all know that a person is generally far different in his 70s than in his 20s. When Bill Clinton was in his early twenties, he was dodging the draft and smoking weed (never inhaled). A couple of decades later, he was a far different man. Why would McCain be any different?
Obviously it's an opinion piece, but very interesting reading. I like how the author brought up the Keating episode and how McCain reacted to the scandal. Pretty enlightening about just why McCain became a "born again" campaign finance reformer. And pretty clever of McCain. The incident is so "old" now that people forget just what the Keating Scandal was and how McCain was involved. Thanks for the read. Oh, and McCain wasn't 20-something when the Keating Scandal broke out, Refman. Might consider that before you lump this in with Bill Clinton's youthful indescritions. Impeach Bush.
I was specifically referring to the entire paragraph or two referring to how McCain was a violent man with a bad temper when he was younger.
Oooops...it was one full paragraph and two small paragraphs. This was before the author spent two paragraphs talking about McCain's experiences in Vietnam and how bloody Vietnam was.
To write something that focuses on how McCain was 50 years ago and to go after his father and grandfather is just pathetic. I have my own set of problems with McCain but who cares what his grandfather did 100 years ago? The Keating 5 stuff and his extremism on foreign policy are valid points for discussion. So is his personality, which I don't think is a good fit for President.
I agree there is a certain myth regarding McCain from liberal and moderates that I think has a lot to do with him taking on the Repub. establishment. While McCain has taken on fellow Republicans on a few key issues for most of his history he has been known as a fairly reliable conservative. The thing that has most benefitted McCain though is that he has been attacked from the right which has made him more appealing to the middle. One of my friends who is a McCain supporter worries though if he gets to the general election what will happen when he gets attacked from the left. The myth of McCain as being moderate and independent could be popped pretty fast. I don't think McCain's grandfather or even father are that relevant but his personality is. While I doubt McCain will go around engaging in fist fights his temper is known and there are times when straight talk can go wrong. I can easily see a situation where McCain lets loose with some statement that ends up hurting him in the election.
Well, looks like the liberals are getting scared. Complete trash piece written by a libpig Why don't we just have Kos or Huffington write their opinions on the guy?
article raises some valid points - especially the keating episode. i just hate how when he speaks he always says "my friends" - you could make a really fun drinking game out of it. and he has a habit of making really stupid off-the-cuff comments like his "bomb-bomb-bomb iran" song or his "ill follow him to the gates of hell" and giving a really weird smile after saying it.
i lvoe it. a guy makes a little progress and they chop him down at the knees. This writer must be a poster here
I used to have great respect for McCain. I might have voted for him in 2000 had he been able to take down Bush. Since then, I can't tell if he's changed or if his true colors have come out. Either way, it's not things that I see as changes for the better. He became a Bush lackey on Iraq. His right wing stances became much less centrist that what he portrayed in 2000. I think he's probably the best of the Republicans running this time around, but that says almost nothing when you're up against this brain trust. My wife absolutely loved him in 2000 and is now afraid of him becoming president.
McCain's rep as being against the Repub. base has really grown wildly in the last few years, and ballooned with the immigration bill. I think the right now seems him as more liberal than he is and that has lent itself to his general perception. As for the Keating scandal leading him into campaign reform, it doesn't shock me. Look at what he does each time something goes wrong for him. The only issue he stuck with was his position on the war. He's now modified his immigration stance to reflect "a lesson learned" with the last fiasco. Anyway, I'm a conservative and there are things about McCain that I like and others that I don't. But I'm not sure I could vote for him. Him being president would really be tough to watch or listen to. His speeches are awful and his temper hasn't subsided. Plenty of stories emerge from the Senate detailing his verbal abuse.
why does he have to be a bush lackey? maybe he just thinks that since we are over there the job should be done correctly and not half assed just to get out..? I trust his military opinions much more so that hillary or obama. Mccain has experience with seeing what happens when military actions are half assed
I don't think he's been a lackey at all to be honest. Wasn't he against the Rumsfeld/Bush strategy that wasn't working? True, he didn't want to abandon the war effort and didn't believe it was a lost cause, but he did not believe the status quo was a good idea.
im dont remember all the specifics, but I do think that he didnt like strategy after the initial wave
