Transterrestrial Musings




Defend Free Speech!


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay




Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Why Libertarianism Matters | Main | A Frightening Thought »

Shameful

That's how Beldar describes John McCain's post-election behavior:

John McCain has failed this test of his own character.


The would-be commander-in-chief surely still had the clout to summon the top twenty-five or so campaign aides into a room for a "Come to Jesus" meeting, a "we aren't any of us leaving this room until I know who leaked those comments" meeting, a "you aren't any of you ever going to work in politics again until we find out who's to blame for this" meeting.

Instead, he goes on Lenno and shrugs his shoulders, minimizing the whole episode. That didn't make anyone famous. That affirmatively encouraged this crap to continue, not just in this campaign but in future ones.

I practice a profession in which secrets are important. I understand the concept of fiduciary duty. I've employed people, professionals and staff alike, who -- simply by virtue of working for me -- have been made subject to the same bright-line, absolute standards that I'm subject to. Very, very rarely, someone in my employment has breached that trust -- and my reaction has been ruthless and thorough and instantaneous. Yes, there have been a few times when I've enjoyed firing someone, and have gone out of my way to make sure that anyone who cared to make future inquiries about hiring that person would find out exactly why they were fired.

McCain's background as a military officer ought to have acquainted him with high ethical standards and the need for their consistent and vigorous enforcement. He almost flunked out of the Naval Academy at the end of every year he spent there, based on conduct demerits, but he never once had an Honor Code violation.

Senator, this was an Honor Code violation by someone on your staff. And you just blew it off. There was no shame in losing the election. But there is definitely shame in this.

Also, thoughts on the willful gullibility of people who believe the idiotic lies about Sarah Palin:

People joked about "Bush Derangement Syndrome," and about "Palin Derangement Syndrome" as its successor. But at some point this kind of thing stops being a joke and becomes a genuine cognative disability -- an inability to process and deal in a rational fashion with objective data because of a bias that is so intense that it blocks out reality.


I can't explain it. I just hope it's a temporary, acute problem rather than something long-term or possibly organic, like the sort of brain tumors or lesions of which Dr. Oliver Sachs writes in his book, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." I'm not being at all snarky here. Rather, I'm entirely serious, because I have considered Dr. Joyner a friend, and I am genuinely concerned for his mental health. He, Andrew Sullivan, and others in their camp are completely persuaded that they can see a degree of ignorance in Gov. Palin which is utterly inconsistent with anyone's ability to function as the governor of any state, but to which hundreds of thousands of Alaskans were absolutely blind for many years despite a much better opportunity to assess Gov. Palin first-hand. That kind of thinking represents a break with reality, one that's not funny at all, but genuinely sad.

[Via David Blue, who has a number of other reasons to be glad that John McCain didn't win the election. But they don't, unfortunately, constitute reasons to be happy that Barack Obama did. We were screwed either way, primarily because the media selected both candidates.]

[Update a few minutes later]

I wonder how many people actually voted for John McCain (that is, voted for him because they liked him, and thought he would be a good president)? I suspect that the vast majority of McCain voters were either voting against Obama, or for Palin, or both, but they weren't voting for McCain. It seems to me that those people who actually like McCain, either personally, or on his eclectic policies, probably like Obama even more (e.g., many in the media). So hardly anyone voted for him. And this is also the reason that the Republican turnout was relatively low. The candidate had no attraction to them.

 
 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Shameful.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10689

17 Comments

memomachine wrote:

Hmmmmm.

"I wonder how many people actually voted for John McCain (that is, voted for him because they liked him, and thought he would be a good president)?"

Not I.

I don't trust McCain. He's made it his career to attack conservatives and it's extremely clear that he selected Palin only -after- it was clear to him that he was toast without conservative support.

But now he'll go back to the standard McCain. Pain in the ass, overly opinionated and pig ignorant on important issues and self righteous in all regards.

We really need to see him loose his next primary.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I'd rather he lose it.

memomachine wrote:

Hmmmmm.

"We really need to see him loose his next primary."

ROFL! Thanks!

Perhaps it was a Freudian slip eh?

What a silly world we live in. I'm almost nostalgic for the Soviet Union. They were commie Red bastards but they were honestly commie Red bastards.

Brock wrote:

Turns out the rumors were a hoax: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

But Fox News' reporting and John McCain's reaction weren't. These jokers managed to score two direct hits on Republican targets with one stone - Fox News' credibility and McCain's integrity.

Good show, men; good show.

For the record, I did not vote -for- McCain, but some combination of for Palin and against Obama.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I thought that Carl Cameron said that Eisenstadt wasn't his source?

Jardinero1 wrote:

Maybe McCain shrugged his shoulders because he approved of the leaking.

Curt Thomson wrote:

I sure as hell didn't vote FOR McCain; his incoherence on economic matters, his droning on about wall street greed, that alone was enough for me. I was totaling up the pros of the Obama win; Hillary lost, no more homeless for at least the next 4 years, etc. The biggest one I had was: "John McCain will never again be a candidate for POTUS".

notanexpert wrote:

It seems that Palin is destined to be forever the object of sexism. In this case it is sexism on the part of people claiming that McCain should have stepped forth to defend her. Can't she defend herself? Especially from such impotent and ridiculous claims such as that she thought Africa was a country? (She may lack experience at the national level, but did she skip grade school?)

Last night Bill O'Reilly went so far as to assert that McCain should have "defended her honor." Really? What is this, Victorian England?

All you folks who feel that McCain should have come to her rescue, think again. Your sentiments are noble but sexist nonetheless. This woman can take care of herself.

Rand Simberg wrote:

All you folks who feel that McCain should have come to her rescue, think again. Your sentiments are noble but sexist nonetheless. This woman can take care of herself.

It's not about coming to her rescue so much as punishing the people who are doing this, to discourage such behavior. Obviously she can take care of herself, and has.

Leland wrote:

All you folks who feel that McCain should have come to her rescue, think again. Your sentiments are noble but sexist nonetheless. This woman can take care of herself.

By this logic, McCain was racist for coming to Obama's defense. The issue people have with McCain not defending Palin has nothing to do with her gender. Rather they are pissed because he would go out of his way to challenge people who dishonored Obama, even when they otherwise supported McCain. But dishonor his own running mate? *shrug*

Do you think the "internal" attacks on Palin compare to a guy saying Barack's middle name at a rally? McCain came right out and denounced anyone who would make derogatory use Obama's own middle name. Why not defend Palin with at least the same vigor?

Wickedpinto wrote:

If the dem ticket had been Hillary, I would have sat out, unless McCain had still picked Palin (unlikely) then I would have had to think about it a bit.

Obama was that bad,that I voted for McCain.

Josh Reiter wrote:

For me it was entirely a VP affair. I was for Palin and against that F'n idiot -- Biden.

I viewed McCain as duct tape - a jerry-rigged patch to minimize the damage until his more reliable successor takes over.

notanexpert wrote:

It's not about coming to her rescue so much as punishing the people who are doing this, to discourage such behavior. Obviously she can take care of herself, and has.
I would be in of favor of him doing that, but how do you want him to punish them? By going negative in public against obscure, publicly unknown people? Anything he tried to do like that would only make him look small, and Palin look weak.

We can't know what he may be saying privately, but as McCain seems to be an honorable man, I would hope that it would not benefit those responsible for the Palin smears.


By this logic, McCain was racist for coming to Obama's defense. The issue people have with McCain not defending Palin has nothing to do with her gender. Rather they are pissed because he would go out of his way to challenge people who dishonored Obama, even when they otherwise supported McCain.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. McCain defense of Obama was mainly for show, to make him look good: "Look at me! I'm not a racist!" But the campaign's over. What purpose would it serve to make a public show of defending Palin? He may be doing so privately.

Obama goes to a racist church for 20 years, and McCain is the one paranoid about being nailed as a racist. Lewis Carroll couldn't have made this up.

Andy Freeman wrote:

> What purpose would it serve to make a public show of defending Palin? He may be doing so privately.

It would show he has character.

Instead, we're left with "McCain defense of Obama was mainly for show, to make him look good"

memomachine wrote:

Hmmmmm.

IMO McCain should have defended Palin because the people attacking her were -his- people. He hired them and then -he- assigned them to be her handlers. She didn't have much of a choice in the matter.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
 

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on November 13, 2008 6:03 AM.

Why Libertarianism Matters was the previous entry in this blog.

A Frightening Thought is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1