It's a sacred trust in McCain's world, because people's lives are at stake.He quotes McCain in his memoir that the officer's responsibility for subordinates is that
"He does not risk their lives and welfare for his sake, but only to answer the shared duty they are called to answer."Ignatius then turns to McCain's most important command decision, his selection of Palin as his running mate, and after some brief words about how puzzling it is and how she is "unprepared by experience or interest" to assume the presidency, sticks in the knife:
No promotion board in history would have made such a decision.
Ignatius uses this decision as a lens to determine what we as a result now know about McCain. He writes:
McCain is 72, and he has had a serious bout with a virulent form of cancer. Thus, he had a special responsibility to pick a running mate who could be, in effect, a deputy commander -- someone who could take over for him if his health should fail. The country is at war, as McCain so often reminds us, and he was picking someone who might be responsible for the security of the nation.Please note those words he had a special responsibility given his health history and his age.
Ignatius refers to McCain's history as a maverick, willing on occasion to challenge party Orthodoxy, and notes issues like ethics and the environment for which he has cared deeply. But then, in the middle of the column, comes one paragraph that provides a explanation for a choice that in many ways defies logic:
But John McCain also likes to win. And he has an impulsive streak, sometimes bordering on recklessness, which is described by many of his friends and by McCain himself in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers." The desire to win, and the impulsiveness, converged in his decision to pick Palin -- a bold move that has allowed McCain to regain his maverick identity.
Consider the multiple dimensions. Impulsive bordering on reckless: we know McCain likes to play craps, not poker. Craps is a game that is strictly one of chance. There is no opponent to scrutinize nor meaningful odds on the remaining cards as there is in poker. He also likes to win, as do most who enter politics or other competitive endeavors. But for most people there is a price they are not willing to pay.
I note that McCain has tried to convince the electorate that he'd rather lose an election and win the war. Like many statements made by his campaign this cycle, that is not quite accurate. He absolutely wants to win the election, and his actions have demonstrated that there is almost no price he is unwilling to pay in pursuit of that victory. And he is also very stubborn, as is the man he seeks to succeed, so that, having made an impulsive decision, he will almost recklessly refuse to consider a change of course.
Ignatius is in as good a position as any commentator in the traditional media to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for the top executive positions. He notes of Palin her lack of experience and knowledge, and writes
no military leader would entrust command to someone so inexperienced or unpreparedand continues by noting that her performance with Gibson did little to allay concerns. He constrasts this with Obama by noting that the Democrat has been subject to intense public scrutiny for four years and his selection of a genuine foreign policy expert, Joe Biden, as his running mate. He looks forward to a vice-presidential debate in which, at least, now, Palin "seems a genuinely risky bet."
IT is not just this choice that bothers Ignatius. He uses the choice as an occasion to examine some other recent moves McCain has made in pursuit of the presidency. For example, he notes McCain's flip on the Bush tax cuts, then asks
Why did he switch his position, other than political opportunism?Using McCain's greatest legislative achievement, campaign finance reform, he reminds us that McCain told Rick Warren of the four justices whom he would not have appointed (even though those paying attention note that he voted for confirmation for the three who came up during his tenure in the Senate). Ignatius then writes
It happens that those are four of the five justices who voted in 2003 to uphold the McCain-Feingold law.
Let me offer the end of the column, perhaps pushing fair use just a bit, then perhaps offer a few additional thoughts.
In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil."He was right.
That is, John McCain is in the eyes of David Ignatius, selling his soul to the devil.
I am reminded of John Kennedy's inaugural address. Kennedy took office as a liberal cold-warrior. And until we had survived the Cuban Missile Crisis he perhaps did not realize the logical endpoint of a cold-war mentality. Still, besides his words about the torch being passed to a new generation, perhaps the most cited words from that speech are these
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.This much we pledge -- and more.
Even as he spoke those words in January of 1961, Kennedy was looking beyond himself and his role as president, to a broader vision of the world, one which included the Peace Corps, so important in raising the opinions of many around the world about this powerful nation in which we live. Shortly after what I have quoted we saw the impact of the vision they contain, when he addressed people who lived in huts and villages and sought to escape mass misery:
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
I contrast those words, and their intent, with what I see from John McCain, who by his actions and those of his campaign has made clear that he is prepared to say any lie, distort any fact, kowtow to any special interest he previously opposed to ensure the survival and success of his campaign to become president. And it gets worse than that. Kennedy offered, as I have noted, a vision of where he wanted to take the country and the world. McCain offers rhetoric about how he knows how to win wars. Really? Did we win Vietnam, the one war in which he participated? Does he know how to "win" a war that his favorite General David Petraeus has made clear cannot be "won" in any conventional sense? Does McCain have any reason for wanting to be president beyond wanting to be president? If so, I have yet to hear it. He claims to want to break the influence of special interests, so he populates the upper levels of his campaign with their representatives, the lobbyists. At that is but one example that could be cited of how his campaign gives the lie to any vision he might purport to claim as the purpose of his running.
Perhaps that is why he is so ready to abandon anything that previously might have truly marked him as somewhat independent from the special interests of the Republican coalition.
I have never viewed McCain as being presidential. For too much of his public career I have seen a man whose temperament is such that it is downright scary to think that he might have his finger on the button, be in a position to make the ultimate decisions about war and peace. Ignatius is, in my opinion, being too kind, far too generous, in merely describing this as
he has an impulsive streak, sometimes bordering on recklessness- he left out that McCain is also petty and vindictive, as more than a few other Senators have experienced and which has been demonstrated by many incidents with others as well.
Perhaps the arrogance of the McCain campaign is finally liberating those in the traditional media to go beyond how McCain has for almost a decade been able to present himself, as a maverick, as one who is a man of principle. As far as is demonstrated by this campaign, the only principle on which it is based would be the words of Al Davis of the Oakland Raiders, "Just win, baby!'
So perhaps we should remind McCain, as does Ignatius, of what he himself told that journalist: The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil.
Senator McCain, it is unfortunate, but you made that Faustian bargain. It was just about the worst thing you could do, yet you did it. And maybe, just maybe, the media - having now seen how far you are willing to go in your lust for power - will call you on it.
I think Ignatius deserves credit for this column, which I believe should be widely distributed. He, like others in the TM (traditional media), and like other voices in The Village, may have been slow to recogize what has been happening. When they get it right, we need to amplify their voices.
This election is too important, not only for this nation, but for the world.
Peace
Joe Biden is capable of being President tomorrow based on his experience, knowledge and temperament.
Sarah Palin is not. PERIOD.
As Karl Rove would say .... she was picked for purely cynical political reasons ... to shore up the Ditto-head Evangelical base. Attractive and intriguing at first .... her pettiness and lack of knowledge is becoming better known.
McCain may have found the perfect cheerleader for his campaign .... at the American people's expense.
In truth, they are insulting women in America by implying that an inexperienced candidate like Palin is acceptable just because she breaks the gender barrier. Simply breaking the gender barrier isn't what is important. It is having a woman who is qualified to be President breaking the barrier that matters. Hillary was qualified, and the primary was very close. Hillary earned the right to be considered a viable Presidential candidate. Every VP must meet that standard. Now, Dan Quayle wasn't qualified. In fact, Palin is probably more qualified than Quayle was. However, Quayle was on the ticket and the GOP still won. That is why the GOP ran Dan Quayle for President in 2000 and 2004...wait, I mean George W. Bush - well, what is the difference?
The bottom line: Sarah Palin is not Hillary. The voters know that. And they will respond.
BTW, that is why that SNL sketch with Tina Fey was so on the money!
Since the Swiftboaters have announced their series of attack ads is about to begin, worse is about to come. This is a direct attack on the American system of government (while of course the Republicans present it as protecting us from the traitorous Obama and wimpy Democrats). This is gaming the system beyond simple war gaming. There is something else going on here.