Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It seems I'm the only person sometimes who remembers that this guy was the poster child for governmental corruption not much more than a decade ago. For those that don't know, in the Savings and Loan "crisis" in the late eighties and early nineties an owner of a S&L named Frank Keating donated money to five US Senators who then tried to bail out Keating's S&L with government money when it became insolvent. John McCain was one of those five senators and his career seemed like toast.

But he somehow miraculously wasn't thrown out of office and was able to turn the whole thing around. He was able to get the media to forget it (and I'm hypothesizing now) simply because he staked out this Republican "Maverick" territory. Since the media is leftist in general, they love a Republican who disagrees with his own party a lot, criticizes its leaders and provides Democrats with someone to quote (John Kerry did this to distraction in the second debate, naming every single general supporting him and every Republican senator who ever criticized the war in Iraq). Plus he becomes powerful very quickly in the senate because there is always the possibility he could switch parties and the leadership needs to keep him as content as possible.

I find it very annoying indeed how everyone kisses this guy's ass for his so called independence and smarts, when in reality he's just a skilled politician who turned what should have been a career ending scandal entirely around and is now the darling of talk shows and Democratic politicos. Of course one could also say similar things about Strom Thurmond or Zell Miller, but the media has never liked either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame it on Viet Nam. I won't go into what I mean by that, it's too complicated and laced with large swatches of glossy psychologizing. Besides, I blame many things on Viet Nam. Not the war in particular, but the era. Which I blame on the '30's....

All in all, McCain has turned into a pretty sorry sort of politician. Everyone talks about Kerry's opportunism, but McCain is kin.

As for Zell Miller, in the main, I consider his sins to be those of youth and place. Besides, I couldn't continue to be upset with the patrician figure who stood straight with righteous indignation in front of the world and told off the Democratic party. That was not opportunism, or politics as usual. That was a man with the courage of his convictions. I might not agree with most of those convictions, but we live at a time when every political speech has the consistency of oatmeal, and he was shooting sparks. I am glad I saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCain seems to be immune from criticism partly because of his Vietnam experience. He scares me even more than Bush or Kerry. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is really appalling--a blatant violation of free speech rights, and explicitly in the political arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, he is a master manipulator.

One thing little known about McCain, he got his start in Congress by betraying Barry Goldwater. Goldwater felt guilty that he didn't run a better campaign for the presidency in 1964, and Vietnam became such a big mess under his opponent. He felt guilty that McCain was one of those in POW camp. So he wholeheartedly endoresed McCain for Congress, and even did campaign appearances for him.

Then when he saw how John McCain turned into the opposite of his values, yet still presented himself as a "rugged individualist", he thought twice about ever attaching his name to a Republican candidate again.

I had the honor of speaking to Barry Goldwater in person once, and I asked him why he didn't do more to assist young Republicans in their efforts. I particularly asked if he would consider having a Journal with his name on it for young scholars.

He told me that he did not want the Goldwater name attached to anything beyond his control. I believe it was his experience with McCain that is to blame for that.

I have no doubt that today McCain is manipulating things to his advantage, so that he can be the Republican candidate in 2008. I predict that if Bush loses the election then McCain vs. Kerry in 2008 would likely lead to a McCain presidency.

It seems I'm the only person sometimes who remembers that this guy was the poster child for governmental corruption not much more than a decade ago. For those that don't know, in the Savings and Loan "crisis" in the late eighties and early nineties an owner of a S&L named Frank Keating donated money to five US Senators who then tried to bail out Keating's S&L with government money when it became insolvent. John McCain was one of those five senators and his career seemed like toast.

But he somehow miraculously wasn't thrown out of office and was able to turn the whole thing around. He was able to get the media to forget it (and I'm hypothesizing now) simply because he staked out this Republican "Maverick" territory. Since the media is leftist in general, they love a Republican who disagrees with his own party a lot, criticizes its leaders and provides Democrats with someone to quote (John Kerry did this to distraction in the second debate, naming every single general supporting him and every Republican senator who ever criticized the war in Iraq). Plus he becomes powerful very quickly in the senate because there is always the possibility he could switch parties and the leadership needs to keep him as content as possible.

I find it very annoying indeed how everyone kisses this guy's ass for his so called independence and smarts, when in reality he's just a skilled politician who turned what should have been a career ending scandal entirely around and is now the darling of talk shows and Democratic politicos. Of course one could also say similar things about Strom Thurmond or Zell Miller, but the media has never liked either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt that today McCain is manipulating things to his advantage, so that he can be the Republican candidate in 2008. I predict that if Bush loses the election then McCain vs. Kerry in 2008 would likely lead to a McCain presidency.

I hate to toot my own horn, (or beat a dead horse), but I keep finding fodder for this argument.

This front-page story was published in Arizona's major newspaper last weekend:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...n-future29.html

You would think John McCain would know better than to do an interview about himself, so close to the election. Its almost like he is trying to upstage Bush...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will John McCain's campaign use the college student vote to jump start

his campaign?

His last campaign was very big on attempting to use college campuses as

springboards for launching his campaign. His message of 'reform'

against the old generation of corruption strikes home with the college

student crowd.

Many college students do not understand more knowledgeable older people

enough that they can dismiss much of what they do not understand as

phonyness, as seen by their strong support for John Kerry. The test is

if they are cynical enough to buy into the McCain campaign fully.

From talking to some very 'politically astute' college students I met thru interns at work, I noticed that they shared the characteristics of being dismissive of principles, but still confident that their assumptions are correct. Aka, the Wet Nurse mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If John McCain thinks he can win by relying on the college vote he is already up the creek without a paddle. The problem with college students (I was one until about 4 years ago) is that they tend not to show up to vote, usually out of laziness. These kids are too busy keg-diving and indulging in the Neitzschean version of carnal joy to care what politician A is doing to thwart politician B. Half these dolts who voted for John Kerry might well have done so because they were impressed by his daughter's bust at that red carpet ceremony back in 2004.

John McCain, whom I actually supported in the 2000 Republican primary when I was a college student, is a double tongued serpent who holds true to the moderate/pragmatist creed, there are no absolute principles in politics, only the heat of the moment, the here and now. He spent the past 5 years trying to undermine Bush's measily tax cuts by denoting them as "TOO BIG" and now all of the sudden he's got his cranium immersed in Bush's rectum, indicating both a lack of principles and a lack of pride.

Bush may be a bit of a dunder head, but I'll take him over McCain any day of the week, and I am glad that he is not president today. Our next Republican candidate will either be Mitt Romney or George Allen, both of whom are half decent, though far from ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gen X was the last lot, we're generation Y :cool:

The problem with college students (I was one until about 4 years ago) is that they tend not to show up to vote, usually out of laziness. These kids are too busy keg-diving and indulging in the Neitzschean version of carnal joy to care what politician A is doing to thwart politician B. Half these dolts who voted for John Kerry might well have done so because they were impressed by his daughter's bust at that red carpet ceremony back in 2004.
I disagree. I think young people tend to be disillusioned with the poiltical system for good reason. Perhaps if they didnt live in a country where pretty much all politicians were corrupt, where there was essentially no difference between the major parties, and where the media done their best to reduce political elections to the equivalent of cheering on your team in a game of football, with debate in the popular press/television being little more than the shallow exchange of soundbites, emotionalism, and bad argument, then people would have more interest in the political system. Speaking personally, I've never voted and its unlikely that I will in the near future, but I wouldnt describe myself as politically naive or too lazy.

I think that apathy towards the current system is a good thing. Anything that undermines its legitimacy can only be a plus. You cant build a worthless political system and then get upset when people refuse to care about it.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I despise John McCain and I really, really hope that my choice in '08 isn't between him and the Hildabeast.

I'm still hoping that the American public will draft Condi into the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I despise John McCain and I really, really hope that my choice in '08 isn't between him and the Hildabeast.

I'm still hoping that the American public will draft Condi into the race.

No real Objectivist could support such a nomination. As Ayn Rand said, a woman "never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader." (Ayn Rand, "About A Woman President," The Objectivist, January 1969)

Condi Rice could not, in the Objectivist sense, treat men as if she were their leader.

And where would that leave us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I think she is by far the most intelligent and sophisticated member of the Bush administration.

Secondly, I don't know her domestic policies, but they can't possibly be worse than any of the other presumptive candidates.

Thirdly, she's got balls. She would do a much better job fighting this war than her boss has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think something similar, but realized that I've heard her talk the talk, but have yet to see her do anything else. Since I've heard bush do that too, and Cheney and others, I've got to assume that she will be no different. If she does run, I'm sure we'll learn more about her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Half these dolts who voted for John Kerry might well have done so because they were impressed by his daughter's bust at that red carpet ceremony back in 2004.

Many college students do not understand more knowledgeable older people

enough that they can dismiss much of what they do not understand as

phonyness, as seen by their strong support for John Kerry.

Were you guys that vehemenently anti-John Kerry? I liked Dr. Leonard Peikoff's argument in support of John Kerry over President Bush that he presented on his course on the DIM Hypothesis. Essentially, while John Kerry seems backwards and/or inconsistent on many small issues, President Bush is inconsistent on more fundamental issues, such as letting faith triumph over reason. Of course, with Senator Kerry's recent advocacy for withdrawing troops from Iraq, I am less confident that he was the clear choice over President Bush in 2004.

Bush may be a bit of a dunder head, but I'll take him over McCain any day of the week, and I am glad that he is not president today. Our next Republican candidate will either be Mitt Romney or George Allen, both of whom are half decent, though far from ideal.

George Allen seems to have the same problem as many Republican legislatures now in that he too embraces religion over reason in many issues although I would presently consider him slightly better than many other prominent Republicans like Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John Thune, etc. Conspicuously absent from this list is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who I perceive is just pretending to be very religious to pander to the religious right.

Call me cynical but I suspect that the Republicans would never nominate Governor Mitt Romney because he will face a lot of discrimination as a Mormon.

With regards to Republican nominations, I would be very happy if Rudy Giuliani would receive the nomination even though I think he could probably use some more experience as a leader.

I used to like John McCain but the number of troublesome positions he has taken over the past few years are causes for increasing concern, most notably when he advocated the teaching of intelligent design alongside with evolution in public schools.

As for the Democrats, I would be happy if they nominated Retired General Wesley Clark and/or Governor Bill Richardson. What do you guys think of Wesley Clark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you guys that vehemenently anti-John Kerry? I liked Dr. Leonard Peikoff's argument in support of John Kerry over President Bush that he presented on his course on the DIM Hypothesis.
In the interest of being fully forth-coming, I am not an objectivist, I am a renegade Thomist/Lockean with a desire to rid America of the evils of comsumerism. I do not favor faith over reason, but a president's fallacious views on metaphysics are less of a concern than the ethics that the democratic party, which is a rather potent blend of altruism and pragmatism.

Harry Binswanger's arguement against Kerry was a bit more interesting, I suggest giving it some credence before you swallow the idea that supporting a democrat is something that a proponent of laissez faire ought to do. Kerry's tax policy was my principle concer, with his views on nationalized health care and more economic controls.

As for the Democrats, I would be happy if they nominated Retired General Wesley Clark and/or Governor Bill Richardson. What do you guys think of Wesley Clark?

They're both Clinton chronies and will bring back the same era of government/business corruption that gave us the Enron and World Com scandals. We need less statism, and independent a complete reversal of the political trends, I say support the person who will delay the process over someone who will speed it up.

With regards to Republican nominations, I would be very happy if Rudy Giuliani would receive the nomination even though I think he could probably use some more experience as a leader.

Ahh yes, the great Stalinist prosecutor from the Reagan era who persecuted businessmen in a fashion reminiscent of the General Electric debauchle. I will only associate one name with this Leftist Republican, and that is Michael Milken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you guys that vehemenently anti-John Kerry? ...while John Kerry seems backwards and/or inconsistent on many small issues,...
The whole "flip-flop" thing was a gimmick, and not the real reason to dislike Kerry. The real reason to dislike him was his old-left ideas. To the extent that he did flip-flop, that was a plus to my mind -- it showed he remain rather middle-of-road. Personally, I'd have voted for him if I thought he would engage in a war against Islamists. At the time, I thought Bush would do a better job at that, specifically.

... Clinton chronies and will bring back the same era of government/business corruption that gave us the Enron and World Com scandals.
I don't see how one can blame Clinton and the Democrats for Enron/World-Com.

... ...

Ahh yes, the great Stalinist prosecutor from the Reagan era who persecuted businessmen in a fashion reminiscent of the General Electric debauchle.
I agree. The Democratic candidate would have to be really, really bad to make me vote for Guliani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kerry was (and is) a people-pleasing, anti-war fairy who showed how embarrassing it is to be living in this country these days because of all the people that voted for him. While I really like Peikoff he showed his rapidly advancing age by endorsing Kerry in the last presidential election. I highly question if Miss Rand would have been too happy for him endorsing that socialist idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... he showed his rapidly advancing age by endorsing Kerry ...
Come on EC, what kind of argument is that? By the unpresented reasoning, are you showing your rash youth by supporting the election of Bush? If there's a counter argument, make it -- don't attack his age unless you can show the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole "flip-flop" thing was a gimmick, and not the real reason to dislike Kerry. The real reason to dislike him was his old-left ideas.

I see this claim that Kerry is left-wing quite a lot, but who is this meant to be in comparasion to? Is there any reason to believe that he would have expanded the government to a greater extent than Bush has, or that he would have spent more money on socialist programs? From my limited knowledge of American politics, it looks like Bush has been one of the top 3 worst presidents in US history, and hes almost certainly been one of the biggest economic disasters youve had (large projected surplus -> record deficit + economy in tatters). Unless we managed to bring zombie FDR back from the dead, its hard to imagine how anyone could have done a worse job.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy certainly isn't "in tatters", but rather has remarkably continued to expand despite all the damage Bush and the rest continue to do. Let's not forget that Bush has signed every bill sent to him by congress, so to say whether Kerry would have been worse you'd need to show that Kerry would have been able to influence congress to spend even more than they have under Bush. Seeing as how the Republicans have been actively expanding government (drug benefits, etc), I doubt Kerry's presence would have made that much difference in terms of government expansion.

The big thing, I agree, is defense. That is where the president plays the crucial role, much more importantly than with respect to Congressional spending. Kerry would have been a serious blow to our security, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kerry would have been a serious blow to our security, in my opinion.

And Bush hasn't? He has been just as bad as Kerry if not worse. Kerry said he would like the US to pass a global test. Bush is implementing it. The bad thing about Bush is that liberals have succesfully painted him as a hawk when he can't even kill an ant.

Edited by tommyedison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see this claim that Kerry is left-wing quite a lot, but who is this meant to be in comparison to?
I didn't mean it to be a comparison. Since you aren't in the US, you probably don't know this, but Kerry's opponents made a big thing about him being a "flip-flopper", suggesting he was weak and kept changing his mind on the issues. They sought to convince voters that Kerry was a "people-pleaser". I doubt he is any more of a people-pleaser than is Bush. It is just that Kerry takes a stand on different issues.

As for how Kerry would have done as President; my guess is that he would not have been much worse than Bush. (The federal legislature is majority-Republican.) He might have delayed acting in the war on Islamists. In hindsight, however, this may not have been such a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×