May 2, 2006


A Man Who Won't Sell His Soul (David Ignatius, May 3, 2006, Washington Post)

He says liberals need to understand that he's not a man of the left, or even the center. "I haven't changed. My record is the same on all issues, which is that of a conservative Republican. Not a liberal Republican, not a moderate Republican." [...]

A measure of McCain's loyalty to Bush on Iraq is that he won't rule out becoming secretary of defense if Rumsfeld goes. "I would have to assess where I can be most effective," he said, adding: "It's awfully hard to say no to the president of the United States."

The GOP nominates good soldiers, the Democrats winter soldiers.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 2, 2006 11:59 PM

Problem with Mccain is that he seems to think he is the soldier on the white horse come to save us all. His latest crack isn't bound to win many friends: "I know that money corrupts I would rather have a clean government than one where, First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, Id rather have the clean government."

Posted by: rps at May 3, 2006 9:18 AM

No one sensible prefers the means to the end.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 9:23 AM

I commented on the same article in a post above. What caught my eye were very different passages.

McCain has done well to support GWB the last three-odd years. I think he's an extremely talented politician who was well suited for the media age, but his weaknesses are exposed in the Internet age and he shows some holes and ragged edges. I wish there were a better candidate around, but I don't know if one will emerge.

Posted by: pj at May 3, 2006 10:13 AM

The GOP hasn't had a better candidate since Ike, though he won't be as good a president as Coolidge or W.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 10:19 AM

It isn't preferring the means to the ends. It's that what McCain refers to as clean government is actually the most corrupt of governments: unresponsive and entrenched.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 3, 2006 12:17 PM

Our government is intended to be unresponsive.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 12:22 PM

Yeah, we're still licking our wounds from when FDR made it responsive for a while.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 3, 2006 12:37 PM


No one sensible thinks they can have ends without means.

Posted by: Mike Earl at May 3, 2006 2:00 PM

No one is arguing that Mr. Earl. The question is which is more important. Does it make more sense to compromise your means to get you end, or compromise your end to keep your means pure?

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 3, 2006 2:06 PM

Is this McCain's way of slamming Rumsfeld? Is it a warning shot?

As a former (career) military man, McCain might be expected not to like Rumsfeld. As a putative candidate, he can't really attack him without hurting the GOP, and he can't undermine the chain of command. As a conservative Republican who has firmly supported the war, he should (in theory) stand behind Rumsfeld.


Posted by: jim hamlen at May 3, 2006 4:45 PM