McCain scores points on the integrity factor, which is a major weak point with the Cryto-Evalgelists and Neo-Cons.
i think mccain is basically a not-so-crypto neocon with a heart of brass. also he has a thing for linda evangelista. (she once talked to him at a party in the 80s and hes had a secret crush ever since.)
To me he seems more like a con than an neo. And he shows a willingness to waver from the party line.
the best part of that powell article in esquire is when someone (forget who) is parsing some washington-speak and they say "thatīs like when mccain says he has a cordial relationship with bush, and it means he doesnīt tell him to fuck off every time they meet"
after cohen served as clintonīs defense secretary i donīt see how mccain can say itīs a party loyalty issue...
i didnt say he wouldnt take the job (especially if it was settled after the election) but he has said he would turn down the vice presidential slot and cited party loyalty. and my point was that unless he gave strong hints to the affirmative that it would give kerry no boost. obviously it signals kerrys foreign policy outlook to the swing voters, many of whom, it has been said, have a favorable outlook on sen mccain.
mccain is certainly a hawk and had (has?) close ties with the weekly standards william kristol who endorsed him for president in 2000. mccain has repeatedly been willing to challenge elements of the bush agenda but most notably on domestic issues.
mccain cosponsored with mayor mclieberman the iraq liberation act of 1998 which inevitably funneled money to chalabi and friends who turned around and gave the misleading reports which justified the actions for war.
ultimately i think hes better than most but i dont want to be fooled about his willingness to indulge the neocon ideological agenda.
Political rule # such-and-such: the deputy cannot be more exciting than the top guy.
|
- mark 5-13-2004 12:21 am
i think mccain is basically a not-so-crypto neocon with a heart of brass. also he has a thing for linda evangelista. (she once talked to him at a party in the 80s and hes had a secret crush ever since.)
- dave 5-13-2004 1:32 am [add a comment]
To me he seems more like a con than an neo. And he shows a willingness to waver from the party line.
- mark 5-13-2004 3:09 am [add a comment]
the best part of that powell article in esquire is when someone (forget who) is parsing some washington-speak and they say "thatīs like when mccain says he has a cordial relationship with bush, and it means he doesnīt tell him to fuck off every time they meet"
after cohen served as clintonīs defense secretary i donīt see how mccain can say itīs a party loyalty issue...
- big jimmy in london (guest) 5-13-2004 3:21 am [add a comment] [edit]
i didnt say he wouldnt take the job (especially if it was settled after the election) but he has said he would turn down the vice presidential slot and cited party loyalty. and my point was that unless he gave strong hints to the affirmative that it would give kerry no boost. obviously it signals kerrys foreign policy outlook to the swing voters, many of whom, it has been said, have a favorable outlook on sen mccain.
mccain is certainly a hawk and had (has?) close ties with the weekly standards william kristol who endorsed him for president in 2000. mccain has repeatedly been willing to challenge elements of the bush agenda but most notably on domestic issues.
mccain cosponsored with mayor mclieberman the iraq liberation act of 1998 which inevitably funneled money to chalabi and friends who turned around and gave the misleading reports which justified the actions for war.
ultimately i think hes better than most but i dont want to be fooled about his willingness to indulge the neocon ideological agenda.
- dave 5-13-2004 4:11 am [add a comment]
i should add that the iraq liberation act of 1998 was unanimously passed by the senate and, it would seem, well regarded by president clinton.
- dave 5-13-2004 4:19 am [add a comment]
Political rule # such-and-such: the deputy cannot be more exciting than the top guy.
- alex 5-13-2004 4:20 am [add a comment]