Almost as in the old days, he’s begun to get plenty of respect from the media. Though the word “old” keeps showing up in regular, not always innocent and invariably hammy tributes–as when his name is attached to terms like “the old warrior” or simply “old soldier.” There’s indeed something suitable in the word as regards Mr. McCain, but it is nothing having to do with his age.
That ingrained pride of his that forbids pandering for political gain–that would be shamed by lying about his deeply held views–is what is old about him. Old in the sense that honor of this kind is sufficiently rare, now, that it’s a subject of wonderment to people when they find it in someone, as they have in John McCain.
The rarity of such standards–the lack of consciousness, even, among political contenders, that limitless pandering might actually be wrong, and say something damning about the character and judgment of the candidate–has never seemed more evident than in the current primary race. Who can forget Mitt Romney listening in seeming amazement, a few weeks ago, as Tim Russert pressed him to explain certain extraordinary (if politically convenient) turnabout stands he’d taken on gay marriage, the right to life and other hot social issues?
A model of self-assurance, Mr. Romney expressed his astonishment at the questions, at the idea that a man couldn’t develop new positions. And what kind of a leader, he wanted to know, would he be if he never changed his mind about anything, etc., etc. What one remembered most about this scene, which had all the makings of one of Hollywood’s cruder Washington satires, was Mr. Romney’s easy aplomb–the air of a man who, it was quite conceivable, had come to believe in the fantastic rationales he’d offered up for all the flip-flopping.
Mr. McCain’s views on immigration and perhaps a number of other issues may never win the approval of some of his strongest supporters. But to those who have watched him these many years, that can’t in the end matter. They know who he is.
An interesting take. No one can doubt Sen. McCain’s integrity. Many Republicans, however, disagree with his immigration policy, and even more with the assault on free speech in McCain-Feingold. Should he be nominated, I will support him against any of the Democrats, but with the above reservations in mind.
It seems more likely, given Mr. Romney’s religious background, that the accommodations to public opinion were made to govern liberal Massachusetts, and the change towards pro-life thinking is the result of serious reflection. It makes sense to me, more sense than the other way around.
I can doubt Senator McCain’s integrity: immigration and campaign finance reform. And the same for everybody else who supported those atrocious bills.
Reactionary: There is a difference between opposing a person’s positions on certain issues and their integrity.
Will B,
No believer in limited constitutional government would ever vote for such legislation; that is the intersection between policy and integrity.
In fact, the more I think about it, immigration “reform” (which thankfully failed despite McCain’s enthusiastic efforts) and CFR were probably the most anti-populist, anti-democratic pieces of legislation the Washington elite have rammed down the voters’ throats in recent memory. McCain is simply awful.