Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/24/17: Sen. McCain, His Pal, And The Amazing Brain Of Hillary Clinton.

Isn’t it a beautiful morning?

1 Another mind-blowing Hillary Clinton note: in an interview on MSNBC, she said that women who supported candidate Trump publicly disrespected themselves, and expressed amazement that any women would be so foolish as to associate themselves, even distantly, with such a sexist.. I’d love to know what internal editing, re-casting of reality, obliteration of integrity and massive lack of self-awareness goes on in Hillary’s head to allow her, of all women, to say things like this, and even more remarkable, assume that nobody—rather than virtually everybody— would find it laughable.

I’m not even going to elaborate on why Hillary Clinton saying women disrespect themselves by supporting a sexist and misogynist is astounding, even for her. I respect my readers’ intelligence. I bet you can figure it out on your own.

2. Senator John McCain is suddenly a hero, twice, for again announcing that he will not support another apparently lousy, GOP bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.  While I have my doubts about the nobility of the Senator’s motives—I think his bitterness at Trump goes deep, and that bias affects his professional actions—but it is worth reading McCain’s arguments for why he will not support the bill, which are solid and ethical, and hardly an endorsement of the ACA:

“Committees of jurisdiction should mark up legislation with input from all committee members, and send their bill to the floor for debate and amendment. That is the only way we might achieve bipartisan consensus on lasting reform, without which a policy that affects one-fifth of our economy and every single American family will be subject to reversal with every change of administration and congressional majority. I would consider supporting legislation similar to that offered by my friends Senators Graham and Cassidy were it the product of extensive hearings, debate and amendment. But that has not been the case. Instead, the specter of September 30th budget reconciliation deadline has hung over this entire process. We should not be content to pass health care legislation on a party-line basis, as Democrats did when they rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2009,” McCain continued. “If we do so, our success could be as short-lived as theirs when the political winds shift, as they regularly do. The issue is too important, and too many lives are at risk, for us to leave the American people guessing from one election to the next whether and how they will acquire health insurance. A bill of this impact requires a bipartisan approach.”

Process. Transparency. Debate. Bi-partisanship. McCain is correct on all counts, and his stand is necessary and important. For Democrats to take smug satisfaction that McCain’s insistence on restoring standards, process and principles is preserving a malfunctioning law that they intentionally defied in  order to pass it is nauseating.

3.  Senator Lindsey Graham, whose co-sponsored bill McCain probably doomed, told reporters that the episode would not wound his long-time friendship with the Arizona Republican in any way. Once I would have said, “Well, of course.” This is how professionals are supposed to think: the professional decision should not be taken personally. However, both parties and their supporters have savaged our culture by behaving otherwise, and increasingly so, for years now. People who disagree with you are bad people, our alleged role models tell us in words and conduct.

On this issue, Sen. Graham is civilized, correct and ethical. Those who can’t find the character to emulate him are not.

4. This week’s New York Times SundayReview, aka Trump Hate Porn Central report: except for an anti-Trump editorial, which is pretty much a daily feature for the Times, nada.


37 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/24/17: Sen. McCain, His Pal, And The Amazing Brain Of Hillary Clinton.

  1. Regarding 4, you have been reporting a decrease in this area for the last few weeks. Do you think this could be due to one of the reasons Althouse listed?

    • Great question. No, in general don’t think the Times hostility has anything to do with what Trump really does. My theory:

      1. Constant Trump hate is boring after a while unless you’re an idiot, like, say, anyone who keeps laughing at Stephen Colbert or cheering on Bill Maher.
      2. With the Emmys, this was a week of over-saturation.
      3. They are literally running out of things to bitch about.
      4. Siding with North Korea is such an obvious cognitive dissonance risk that even the Times won’t risk it.
      5. Not writing positive essays about Trump is its own kind of bias. If the Times had any integrity, it would have run a piece like Peggy Noonan’s about how Trump told the world what it needed to hear.

      • I’m betting readership has to be a big part of it. They have to suspect that one of the reasons they are suffering is due to their own bias. Perhaps this is their way of trying to hold on to the moderates without giving up their worldview.

      • 1. Partisan and idiot are quickly becoming one and the same.
        2. Yup.
        3. Until Trump tweets again, and today’s mass protest in the NFL is going to give them a lot.
        4. Didn’t stop Chelsea Handler, and it didn’t stop more than a few people I know from siding with NK, saying that they just want to be left alone.
        5. The Times burned that bridge in the election.

  2. Bipartisanship is a pipe dream today. The Demos will never go along with any substantial change to come up with any bill to replace Obamacare. Although I deeply respect McCain’s Vietnam War service and behavior in the Hanoi Hilton, I think he should be honest with the voters of Arizona and declare himself to be a blue dog Democrat. Or perhaps an independent. But he won’t of course.

    • As an Arizona resident, I now have Jeff Flake and John McCain as my US senators. They’re both grandstanding against Trump. What are they thinking? Are they running in New York? Sure, everything McCain said is true and admirable, but why isn’t he in the trenches trying to put together a better bill and getting Democrat buy-in rather than sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones? Answer, he’s getting back at Trump. I’m beginning to think the Senator from Budweiser is little more than a vindictive little son of a bitch.

  3. At an earlier stage of development (1994) I assembled the…um…qualities my ideal X-Chromosomal Unit would possess, the “Intellect” category was assigned to HRC.

    I bring this up now to illustrate how callow, youthful, seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time ideals and beliefs often surrender to the more sound judgement hindsight and experience kindle.

    Welp, that and the cathartic termination of an eerie Dr. Phil voice rattling around in my brain pan:

  4. “Sen. Graham is civilized, correct and ethical. Those who can’t find the character to emulate him are not.”
    I’m not so sure about that. But he is in this instance.

  5. I find HRC’s comment less amazing because of who and what her husband is than its total, reductio ad absurdum endorsement of identity politics. She’s now on record for saying, if you’re a woman, if you don’t vote for a woman, you’re deplorable. So, if I’m a straight, white guy and I don’t vote for the straight white guy, I’m deplorable.

    Again, she’s running for President in 2020. She can’t help herself. She’s not going to exit the stage gracefully. She doesn’t do graceful.

  6. Thoughts on the mass protests in the NFL today? Was it hell slapping back at Trump, or did he just put the players right where he wants them?

    • I know you weren’t asking me, but I’ll answer anyway.

      I’ve said before that I think flag burning is stupid, but if Trump took steps to follow through on his threat to make flag burning illegal, I’d start burning flags until I was arrested.

      Similarly, regardless of the validity of Kaepernick’s original protest, I think the players standing in solidarity with him are doing the ethical and honorable thing. Though Trump hasn’t taken steps to make speech like Kaepernick’s illegal, Jack is right that the president has no business targeting citizens like this. The players are sendingthe message that the president’s behavior toward their fellow players is unacceptable. Taking a knee is a fairly unobtrusive and peaceful way to do that. They are standing up for free speech. They are ethics heroes.

        • Stupid question. One can protest less-than-ideal circumstances in one’s own country while recognizing that other countries might not be any better, and there is no contradiction there. Does any country have more robust free speech protections than the United States? If not, does that mean you believe Jack should stop complaining about threats to free speech in the US?

          • But why the incessant criticism of the US and the insistence that anything less than perfect is outrageous and unacceptable? I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question. Here’s another one: What do the people kneeling during the national anthem want?

            • And to blythely say “Ho hum, the US is the best place in the world for black people” is disingenuous. What problem has plagued mankind throughout its history more than racism and what country and society has done more to combat discrimination against black people? So yes, you can keep screaming about white people but don’t expect everyone to take you very seriously. Again, what needs to happen?

              • I mean…politically active people usually spend more time criticizing their own nations than in criticizing others, for obvious reasons. Jack criticizes the US more than other countries. So do you. You just criticize different things about the US.

                I don’t “scream about white people,” and I haven’t heard Kaepernick doing that either. Some in BLM do, and I agree that is neither effective nor very serious. But I think he and BLM have been pretty clear about what they want. Their demands are not hard to find or understand. I don’t find all of their demands reasonable, but more oversight of police is certainly a reasonable goal.

      • The NBA is headed off the same cliff. White owners exploiting black athletes to make fortunes off their NFL and NBA franchises have a problem. They want the athletes out in the field picking the cotton but they don’t want them in their boardrooms particularly. At least not until they’ve made their billions in some other business rather than as players. Which is, frankly, kind of understandable. Will be interesting to see where and how Michael Jordan comes down on this as we head into the inevitable “protests” during the upcoming NBA season. But there’s no way in hell the owners in either the NFL or the NBA will challenge the players on the national anthem thing. I think Trump may be gigging the NFL guys. Remember, he lost his suit against the NFL when he was trying to do a hostile takeover of the NFL through the WFL.

        • He is gigging them, but he’s gigging them to fire up his base. Social media is flooded with people saying they are done for the season and that the NFL is the National Felons League.

          • It’s also flooded with supporters of Kaepernick. It’s a shame the NFL has to take a stand on something this trivial, but Trump has forced their hand. Of course he wanted them to respond this way; he thrives off conflict and chaos. But I doubt this particular controversy will help his approval ratings, his standing, or his ability to actually get things done.

            He’s a flailing toddler, and should be treated as such.

          • That isn’t a spelling-out of the acronym “NFL” with much distinction, in the world of professional sports. We are both discussing a lower league.

        • Until 2009, the players were not even on the field during the National Anthem. I am betting they will just stay in the locker room if this ‘boycott’ picks up steam.

          And the NFL is already hurting just from Kaepernick’s little self serving stunt (that backfired)…

          Just how many die hard progressives watch the NFL? How many attend football games? I am betting the NFL-watching demographic is very heavy in deplorables.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.