Select Page

I watched Friday’s John and Cindy McCain interview on The View.  Below is part 1; parts 2 and 3 should be accessible from the video.


I see several posts refering to this interview as “McCain Grilled On The View”, for instance this story at Huffpo, and this one at Century Of The Common Iowan.

A stretch to say the least.

First of all, the ladies of The View basically threw the same lame questions at McCain that have been circulating the Liberal Media and Blog Sites for the past few weeks. It was clear that they did little in the way of real research, and set themselves up to look foolish.  Later in the show, Cindy was brought out, and from there on it was just pretty weak.  Topics they discussed wiht McCain:

  • Palin prayed at her church for us to be on God’s side like Abe Lincoln, so now they wonder if the seperation of church and state are at risk.  Aside from the fact that they, like most of the Left, have no idea what the first amendment to the Constitution even means, even by liberal standards this question was vacuous.
  • McCain’s ads are so mean, and full of lies.  I have so little time for this kind of idiotic behavior.  Although I would prefer to see both campaigns focus their financial energies on presenting their policies and positions instead of criticizing the opposition.  Despite that, the assessment of truth on the ads in question is equivocal, as are many things in campaigns and politics, and often repeated.  For instance, the accusation that Obama voted to teach kindergartners sex education is not new… Hillary Clinton made the same assessment during the primaries.
  • McCain’s position on abortion, while being inconsistent (“The rights of the unborn being at conception”, “except in the case of risk to the life of the mother, incest and rape”… sorry, these two statements don’t work together when including incest and rape in my book), is nonetheless moot.  The question of Palin’s position being different (her only exception is risk to the life of the mother) got swept under the rug for good reason… it is also moot.  McCain articulated his position on this well: the President is not in a position to spell out law to define when life begins.  That is a right that should be owned by the states.
  • Judges, however, get caught up in the abortion discussion.  McCain wants Constitutional Constructionists (he said “who strictly interpret the Constitution”, but means the same thing)… jurists who will apply the Constitution as it was originally intended instead of assigning new ideas to the text.  Without an abortion litmus test.  And, as such, would not be inclined to try to legislate or amend from the bench.  As McCain stated, Roe v. Wade is just one of many decisions from the federal courts that have created whole new ideas for the Constitution (in this case, the fourteenth amendment) that simply does not exist there.  When McCain mentioned his approach to judges, Barbara Walters says “that’s another way of saying people who would overturn Roe v. Wade”.  Of course, that is a potential result, but the fact remains that we are living in a state of law that has been held hostage by a court that has dramatically exceeded its authority.  What’s even more amazing is that the other two branches have done little to correct the problem.
  • And Whoopi shows us just how much of a horse’s backside or idiot she can be when responding to McCain’s statement about Constitutional interpretation with feigned fear of becoming a slave again.  I cannot fathom how someone can even pretend to be educated and informed and make such a ridiculous statement.
  • Reform.  Barbara states “Republicans have been in power the last eight years.”  Well, except those last two, but who’s keeping track of Barbara’s factual errors?  Then she presses about what will be reformed.  “You [McCain]?  The Senate?  The Congress?  The Republican Party?”, after having prefaced with “I can understand why the Democrats talk about reform.”… I don’t even understand what she was trying to say by that.  How can she not already properly understand the need for reform?  She eventually says she’s not happy Palin didn’t sell the governor’s jet for the amount paid for it!  Just stupid.  And continuing to knit-pick words and meanings when the facts have already been laid out and explained is just beyond me.
  • And I am really tired of listening to the regurgitation of earmarks issue.  For that last time, it’s not about requesting or receiving money’s from the federal government for legitimate projects, such as infrastructure improvements.  The issue is the secrecy of the process, and the availability to add them to conference committee reports that makes the system dirty and in need of repair.  When members of Congress can take credit for and yet not be held accountable for earmarks because of the anonymity of the process, all kinds of abuse takes place.

McCain handled it well.  Most of this crew are just a bunch of ladies that like to talk, which is great, but aside from Walters, none really has any substantive journalism credentials, so it’s no better than picking a bunch of people with strong opinions who just listen to the garbage the MSM feeds them and spits it back out.  And for all her experience, Walters was underwhelming.  And providing a serious answer to a question was at times totally lost because six people are all trying to talk at once, with some making jokes throughout the process to interfere with McCain’s responses.

So, grilled, ambushed, anything you want to say that makes it sound like McCain was attacked by these tepid animals, is just overstating the facts.  Pretty dull in my opinion.

If you are looking for an interview that provides a meaningful investigation into policy and practice, with an even-handed critique of the responses, I have only this to say:

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate

    Log in