Now they're comparing McCain with Churchill.
How far does the Weekly Standard want to go?
McCain might be more successful in wooing conservatives if he claimed the mantle of a different Republican icon, Winston Churchill, a maverick distrusted in his day by Conservatives and a man whom McCain praised frequently in his books. The parallels between McCain and Churchill are striking and instructive.
Both have felt most at home in battle, whether in war or political chambers, and have shared a restlessness to advance their own careers and the cause of their countries.
It goes on and on about how they both took stands to enhance their nations security, etc, etc,,,
And I don't have a problem with McCain that way.
What the article failed to do was connect McCain and Churchill in the way that McCain took pleasure in stabbing Conservatives in the back.
It doesn't show Churchill trying to open the doors (and coffers) of his country to millions of lawbreakers.
It doesn't show how Churchill stifled political speech with his version of the McCain/Feingold act.
It doesn't show how Churchill torpedoed his own party's ability to sway the controlling party by his version of the 'Gang of fourteen' and then have his opposition gangsters blow off the agreement weeks later.
Why should I think the cat won't drink that cream now?