THE PLANK MAY 16, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
James Rubin recalls a conversation with John McCain, circa 2006:
I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Now, in fairness to McCain, this is only an implicit call for negotiation with Hamas ("one way or another" can mean a variety of things). But this response goes far beyond anything Clinton or Obama is proposing, and seems pretty imprudent considering that this is still a terrorist group we're talking about. (Unlike Jamie, I think it's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a state that sponsors terrorism as a tactic and a terrorist group that wins one election somewhere.) Here's hoping someone in the intrepid press corps will ask McCain to explain what he meant back then, and why he's apparently changed his tune.
--Josh Patashnik
4 comments
"Here's hoping someone in the intrepid press corps will ask McCain to explain what he meant back then, and why he's apparently changed his tune."
At this point you could easily compile a Top 10 of questions that fit this description.
- adaglas
May 16, 2008 at 12:57pm
John McCain is an ambitious man. But he is also a principled man, so these jostle each other. He has done a 180 on tax cuts and other issues. Mccain came close to becoming a Democrat but he ultimately decided to stay in the party. To secure the nomination, he definitely had to run to his former right. Who knows how he would govern if elected?
- liberal reformer
May 16, 2008 at 1:08pm
libref, we all know how McCain would govern if elected. He has been elected, and he has been governing, for most of his adult life. His voting record, with few exceptions, reflects straight party-line support for the GOP's conservative agenda. He may say things that sound "principled," like claiming to be against torture or against cutting taxes in wartime. But in the former case he actually voted for torture, not against it, and in the latter case he now repudiates his vote against wartime tax cuts. If you have any doubt whatsoever that a McCain presidency would be a third term of ideologically extreme conservatism, then you're simply not paying attention.
Which I totally understand; McCain has a certain kind of charisma, and I recognize in myself some desire to believe fantasies that McCain isn't really as committed a partisan as his actual record in government shows him to be. Maybe the stuff he says, not the stuff he does, reflects his true self! But no, in the real world, one's values are what one does, not what one says one would prefer to do. McCain's values are what he does, and those demonstrated values are nearly indistinguishable from Trent Lott or Tom DeLay.
- rhubarbs
May 16, 2008 at 1:38pm
Josh wrote earlier about Jamie Rubin's Washington Post op-ed today alleging John McCain's "Hypocrisy
- Anonymous
May 16, 2008 at 5:23pm