John McCain diagnosed with brain cancer

Politics and religion
342

I agree it clearly not just the left, or even primarily. The general complaints about McCain on the left is that he was a war monger and Republican, but they allow he has some redeeming qualities. The intense vitriol directed to him that I’ve read on places like National Review and Weekly Standard is that because he has attacked Trump, and dared to question the party, basically accusing him of being a race traitor.

In reality McCain didn’t change as a 538 analysis showed for the first 10 year McCain voted with party 88% of the time, the rest of the career it dropped to 86% of the time. The difference was the first 10 year McCain was right the middle of being reliable party vote, the last 20 years end he was one of the least reliable Republican vote, although not the least reliable.

343

Which would be perfectly fine at any time, except for the time between when he dies and he is buried. So its fine for me to say that Aretha Franklin, was vastly overrated as pop or R&B singer, but common decency says that I keep my mouth shut until the end of the week when she is buried. It is the destruction of long held and very wise standards of behavior that Trump has flouted that is among the most damaging things the man has done to this country.

344

This particular sin of Trump’s — dissing McCain — is just about the least damaging thing he’s done. And comparing liberals to Trump because they criticize McCain on perfectly factual grounds is exactly what I said it was, an argument of the form you’re on the side of the terrorists.

345

I didn’t really expect you to understand, so it pointless to engage further.

346

We should all put as much thought into planning for the inevitable as John McCain did:

347

It’s complicated, talking about McCain. I do agree, in principle, with not overstating the good of a person, or making hagiographies of them, upon their death. It does a disservice to the people, and the individual as well, to beatify them. And the notion that we should refrain from discussing a topic because event X,Y,Z always rings as false to me. The ‘it is incensitice to the deceased’ standard is unevenly applied anyhow.

No discussing gun control after a shooting
No discussing police reform after a controversial police shooting
No discussing changes to terrorist response after a terrorist attack (haha,Ike that would happen)
Don’t criticize the dead
Now is not the time to discuss Confederate monuments, Black Lives Matter makes it too charged

It is often a tactic employed to ensure it is never the right time.

But on the inverse, it is not the time to write a hit piece. I do agree in affording respect to someone who served a long time.

So I think the most respectful thing would be to have an honest recounting of the man, good and bad. Don’t write a puff piece to inflate his memory, only for it to be torn down later. Likewise do not ignore what good he did.

At the end of the day he was someone who I respect as a decent Senator. But one whose reputation often exceeded his actions. He fostered the image of maverick, but only occasionally rose to the title. His military service is commendable. His final vote on the ACA was worthy of the reputation. He also helped usher in the Tea Party through his presidential run.

As Republican Senators go, he was one of the best. His legacy is, and should be, complicated.

I wish there were more McCain’s in the senate.

And I’d wish them to be the man John McCain aspired to be, which wasn’t always the one he was.

348

I think there is a world of difference between talking about gun control, monuments, police reform, and a person. The former is as you a say generally an excuse for politician to duck an issue, and it is not a cultural norm, just some recent invention. If anybody said after the Harper Ferry raid, now is not the time the to discuss Slavery in America, I’m unaware of it. Rather it set off yet another national discussion about slavery.

Not speaking ill of the (recent) dead is literally something that goes back for thousands of year. I remember right after MLK was shot, that folks brought up his affairs. That was wrong then, but it is perfectly fine to discuss in the context of history. There are loved one who are hurting right it is cruel to inflict additional pain on them. I didn’t even know the man, but as my political hero it hurts to see awful things said about the man. I could barely have a rational discussion about the man now, I couldn’t last weekend, by next week perhaps. I’m guessing most of his Senate colleagues will take weeks to absorb the lost, and obviously his family will be years.

Senator McCain was man of historical importance, as was the first to admit a flawed man. There is plenty of time to discuss the flaws, later.

349

Historical importance… That sounds like a reach.

350

If it turns out that his no vote leads us to healthcare for everyone some day, he has a place in history IMO.

351

His two signature accomplishments were 1) that no vote, and 2) McCain - Feingold. The latter is largely an empty husk, destroyed by the very judges that McCain helped onto the Court. The former will have no lasting impact, as the party that he helped put into near-permanent majority will continue to nibble away at the core of the ACA. I do think there will eventually be a better health care program in this country, but it won’t be because of McCain’s vote.

352

Scott, McCain didn’t have to do it. He simply had no compelling reason that forced him to do that vote. He choice to. You can hate him, dislike hime, point out his flaws and question any lasting impact he had, but he had every opportunity to fall into line and avoid the grief and attacks he got for that vote. He choice differently. That’s still worth noting even if it doesn’t change the world forever.

353

Yes, I completely agree with that. I don’t mean to diminish what he did, I just don’t think it will have long-term or lasting consequences.

354

Too bad we didn’t get to see his real Republican heroism in action. Willing to sacrifice decency and norms just to get his way, like the toddler President he later resented. Will everyone be speaking in reverent tones of Mitch McConnell when he goes shell up?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said Monday that if Hillary Clinton is elected, Republicans will unite to block anyone she nominates to the Supreme Court .

355

Tres, tres mavericky.

356

. John McCain is quickly walking back his statement that Republicans would automatically oppose any potential Supreme Court nominee from Hillary Clinton.

Rachael Dean, a spokeswoman for the GOP senator, said that while McCain “believes you can only judge people by their record” and the Democratic presidential nominee "has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” the Arizona senator would consider any Supreme Court pick sent to the chamber.

“Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career,” she said.

357

Did McCain himself walk that back, or was it just his spokesperson?

358

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the following statement today on President Obama naming Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as his nominee to the Supreme Court:

“This issue is not about any single nominee – it’s about the integrity of the Court. With less than a year left in a lame-duck presidency and the long-term ideological balance of the Supreme Court at stake, I believe the American people must have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court by electing a new president. The last time the American people spoke, they elected a Republican majority to the Senate to act as a ‘check and balance’ on President Obama’s liberal agenda – a responsibility I cannot ignore. We must allow the people to play a role in selecting the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Did he walk that one back too? Nothing but a Republican hack, like all his peers. Where was the honor in the above statement? Bullshit like this will long outlast his thumbs down to Trump, given only because he personally didn’t care for the guy, not for any belief in better healthcare for the non-wealthy.

359

I won’t speak for anyone else, but I am not trying to defend McCain’s humanity, I’m trying to protect the humanity of the people dancing on his grave.

360

Thank you.

361

My humanity is just fine, though I’m hardly dancing on the man’s grave.

I’m not sure why pointing out very valid criticisms of the man is somehow worse than celebrating with breathless adoration a man that did a hell of a lot of harm to this country and the people that live here.