Crash of the dodo birds
A few years ago, in advance of the 2008 presidential election, we sat down with Sen. John McCain. Among our questions were those prefaced by his decidedly unconservative positions on a number of major issues. Among them was his steadfast advocacy for unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.
How, we asked the Arizona Republican, could he claim to be a conservative while holding such views? “Because I say I'm a conservative,” he retorted.
It was a window on Mr. McCain's true, unprincipled nature. And it was on ugly display again last week following Sen. Rand Paul's drone filibuster.
Mr. Paul, the libertarian/conservative of Kentucky, staged a 13-hour filibuster that, in the end, forced a hemming and hawing Obama Justice Department to affirm that the administration was constitutionally barred from using drones to kill noncombatant Americans on American soil. It's a seminal victory for the Fifth Amendment — no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
But McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (who, as Paul was fighting to preserve this fundamental right, were doing the chummy-chum-chum with President Obama at dinner) incredibly took to the Senate floor to blast Paul. McCain called the filibuster a “disservice” and “a political stunt.” And he called the new GOP vanguard “wacko birds.” Mr. Graham, of South Carolina, said Paul posed a ludicrous question that did not deserve an answer. How dare they.
A new era dawned for conservatives and the Republican Party with the Paul filibuster. And it is an era in which Sens. McCain and Graham have proven they are dodo birds.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Kane case: Charges upon charges
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- How to counter Putin in Syria
- The Cinefra case: A sordid defense
- Tower of babble
- The Pennsylvania budget: Wolf’s costly ploy
- The Oregon shooting: Tragic & appalling
- ‘80 by 50’?: This extreme climate proposal is a big zero
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes