Radley Balko has a few questions for John McCain. Here's one:
In your January primary debate, you referred to "greedy" Wall Street stockbrokers, and in contrasting your career to the business career of Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, you said, "I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit."Here's another:
Do you think a career in public service is inherently more noble and virtuous than a career in the private sector? Are people who spend their lives on the taxpayer dole as politicians and government employees simply better people than those who create wealth and jobs through private enterprise?
In 1989, your wife Cindy became addicted to the prescription drugs Percocet and Vicodin. Eventually, she began stealing medication from the non-profit medical charity she ran to assist the victims of war and disaster areas. You and your wife were able to negotiate a settlement with the Justice Department that let her off with restitution and admission to a rehabilitation center, but no fines, jail time or even public disclosure.His next column will pose questions to presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
Certainly no one could fault you for trying to save your spouse from criminal sanction. But you're consistently one of the most strident drug warriors in Congress. You've voted to strengthen penalties against those who use and traffic in both illicit drugs and who divert prescription drugs. You've supported mandatory minimums and harsher penalties for first-time offenders. Why shouldn't average people without powerful connections who make the same mistakes your wife made be shown the same leniency and mercy the criminal justice system showed her?
Straight Talk: A few questions for John McCain (via Reason Magazine)
5 comments:
Interesting, tough questions. The first one seems very elitist. Suggesting that being a venture capitalist such as Romney is just as commendable as being a public servant.
Second question seems very populist. Suggesting that people with connections shouldn't benefit unfairly from them.
Not sure ultimately what the author is trying to achieve, other than making McCain uncomfortable?
I hope the second set of questions are better than the first.
The questions presented were interesting, but will not help me at all in what I need to know about the candidate.
I agree with bjorn about the uncomfortable objective.
Bjorn, you should go back and familiarize yourself with Romney's story before calling that question elitist.
Romney was born to great privilege--but inherited none of it. All of what Mitt Romney has amassed has been through his own labor, risk and smart sense.
Unlike a John Kerry or a John McCain, who married their wealth (okay, that is earning it too), Romney is a symbol of what's right with America. A boy who uses his keen mind to learn the ways of the business world, then dives in and competes with the best, with his mind as his chief weapon.
When such a boy grows up to be a man like Romney, you can only stand up and cheer. Does that make him presidential material? I wouldn't vote for him if Duncan Hunter were still available. But don't you agree he's a far more able and qualified candidate than McLame, O'Bama and Hitlary?
Is preferring someone who has demonstrated superior competence "elitist"? Sure it is. The presidency is the most elite job on the planet. Much as I love the York Revolution, I'm not putting them in the World Series with the New York Yankees in any given year, as elitist as that attitude may sound. Call it realist.
As for the appropriateness of the questions, I feel like beating up John McLame. I'm a conservative. I've said for years that I would never--NEVER--cast a vote for John McCain for any public office. The man is a hero. He's also a walking disaster zone not just for his party but for the country at large.
O'Bama is a far better choice than McLame. You'll get exactly the same policies from the one as from the other. You'll get exactly the same judges from the one as from the other. But at least O'Bama will direct the public scorn at the party who has actually caused the disaster. It took Carter to remind the country what will happen when liberals think they have a mandate.
We need to go through this for the country to discover anew what must happen for our nation to survive. McLame will cause the country to hate the Republicans even more than Bush has. I hate the Republicans myself--but they will never get the message if McLame is elected.
Steve,
I called the question elitist because I believe it defends the notion that pursuing individual material gain is somehow on par with dedicating your life to altruistic endeavors.Accumulating money, in my opinion, is not worthy of praise and certainly does not demonstate an ability to lead the country.
I saw the questions as an attempt to catch a politican in a contradiction. Not exactly a challenge, I'm sure you would agree.
Steve,
On what do you base this?
"You'll get exactly the same policies from the one as from the other."
Can you point to any votes or stated policy goals that demonstrate this as being remotely true?
Post a Comment