They advertise themselves as unifiers, those that can bring people together because they are ‘neutral’. But are they neutral when they need both sides to be in conflict?
McCain and Bill Keller and Alen Specter, all think in similar fashions. They take the road of the middle, between each side, selling their services to both, and declaring themselves somehow superior because they can transcend ‘partisan’ bickering.
There’s a purpose behind partisan bickering, i.e. the Loyal Opposition. There needs to be disagreement and flexibility, but there also needs to be clear cut chains of command otherwise we end up arguing in the midst of a war and self-destruct. But obedience without question also leads to inevitable self-destruction, because once a path is taken no deviation is allowed for calibration or correction.

I don’t think Specter or politicians like him understand that. They think in terms of the deal. Not in terms of what is best for America, but what is best for the people they are making a bargain with. That’s not the same thing. Even if they make bargains with Bush, Kennedy, or 50 other Republicans/Democrats, that does not in anyway benefit the Republic. After all, those bargains could have been designed to further erode unity and national security. How is McCain going to tell, except based upon the word of the politician in question? Some politicians will try to keep their word, others are like Obama. How is McCain or Specter going to decide or differentiate?

They won’t. They won’t even try. Cause it doesn’t matter to them. Something else matters to them. If it is not personal wealth, then it is some ideological or status concern. That’s not going to help beat back an enemy as atrocious and relentless as the Left, however.