Who Is McCain?

[wkmac]

In another thread, the same good question was posed concerning Obama so in an effort to assure the principle of "Fair and Balanced" that has become an iconic mantra for some, I thought I'd post 3 opinions on different aspects concerning McCain that came from the Feb. 2008 issue of "The American Conservative" Magazine.

The first piece by Pat Buchanan entitled "The Great Betrayal" considers McCain's history concerning numerous conservative issues and his actions concerning them.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/buchanan.html

The 2nd piece by Justin Raimondo entitled "The Madness of John McCain" considers the history of McCain on some foreign policy matters from previous years.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html

The last piece by W. James Antle III entitled "Presidential Pardon" is oddly about illegal immigration although you'll understand the connection to pardon when you read the piece.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover2.html

Much has been said of Obama being the candidate of change but I wonder if a much stronger case can be made that the "CHANGE" candidate for 2008' is really John McCain!

Hope you enjoy!

 

[av8torntn]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120951606847454685.html

Getting to Know John McCain

By KARL ROVE

April 30, 2008; Page A17

It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton.

As we ate near the Days' home in Florida recently, I heard things about Sen. McCain that were deeply moving and politically troubling. Moving because they told me things about him the American people need to know. And troubling because it is clear that Mr. McCain is one of the most private individuals to run for president in history.

When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means they will want to know more about him personally than he has been willing to reveal.

Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple." The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained.Had it done so, he never would have flown again.

But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.

Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complimented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.

Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other
prisoners.

Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's sermons. "He remembered the Episcopal liturgy," Mr. Day says, "and sounded like a bona fide preacher." One of Mr. McCain's first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor.

Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head. One night, a Vietnamese guard loosened his bonds, returning at the end of his watch to tighten them again so no one would notice.

Shortly after, on Christmas Day, the same guard stood beside Mr. McCain in the prison yard and drew a cross in the sand before erasing it. Mr. McCain later said that when he returned to Vietnam for the first time after the war, the only person he really wanted to meet was that guard.

Mr. Day recalls with pride Mr. McCain stubbornly refusing to accept special treatment or curry favor to be released early, even when gravely ill. Mr. McCain knew the Vietnamese wanted the propaganda victory of the son and grandson of Navy admirals accepting special treatment. "He wasn't corruptible then," Mr. Day says, "and he's not corruptible today."

The stories told to me by the Days involve more than wartime valor.

For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back.

She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife. "We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.

A few, but not many, of the stories told to me by the Days have been written about, such as in Robert Timberg's 1996 book "A Nightingale's Song." But Mr. McCain rarely refers to them on the campaign trail. There is something admirable in his reticence, but he needs to overcome it.

Private people like Mr. McCain are rare in politics for a reason. Candidates who are uncomfortable sharing their interior lives limit their appeal. But if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.

Americans need to know about his vision for the nation's future, especially his policy positions and domestic reforms. They also need to learn about the moments in his life that shaped him. Mr. McCain cannot make this a biography-only campaign, but he can't afford to make it a biography-free campaign either. Unless he opens up more, many voters will never know the experiences of his life that show his character, integrity and essential decency.

These qualities mattered in America's first president and will matter as Americans decide on their 44th president.

 

[av8torntn]

"Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security -- a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will fight the Democrats' crippling plans for a tax increase in 2011. Left to their devices, Democrats will impose a massive $100 billion tax hike, almost $700 per taxpayer every year."

https://web.archive.org/web/2008073...sues/0b8e4db8-5b0c-459f-97ea-d7b542a78235.htm

 

[wkmac]

Voting record Database. Pretty good in that you can drill down and look a specific votes. Has data from the present 110th Congress back to the 102th Congress which was the years 1991' to 1993'.

 

[tieguy]

there is a nice new york times piece about McCain and his stint in the hanoi hilton. god bless him for his service and leadership during such a trying time.

 

[wkmac]

John McCain sez:

“This Congress and this administration have failed to meet their responsibilities to manage the government,”

“Government has grown by 60 percent in the last eight years. That is simply inexcusable.”

source:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-touts-economic-plan-2008-07-07.html

Back in the day we didn't call this conservatism, that my friend was out and out socialism! And when did conservatism become about "managing gov't?"

Question: Where was John McCain, where was his voice, where was his leadership, where was "The Maverick" while all of this was going on?

Next question: Based on the obivous answer to the question above, why should we believe that he and the republicans would do any different now or once elected/re-elected in November?

If I'm gonna have liberal/socialist/communist gov't, why vote for a wanna-be, a rookie, a half-arser when I can vote and have the real deal with Obama? Or based on the record of the last 8 years, how really different other than the BS they feed the voters is McCain and his republican buddies from Obama and the democrats?
Ooooo, that was fun!


I guess you would argue that under Obama and the democrats that gov't would grow at 120% but then how is the end result at the bottom of the cliff any different when you're trying to tell me that going over the cliff at 60 mph if better that 120 mph? The finished product is still the same thing.

Now the Congress is trying with all their might to make Bush's approval rating look good!

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance

What a swell bunch of folks and a nice retirement gift for GW!


And now for the good new.... uh I mean the reality check.

That prospect is a window onto a remarkable political trend that has been eclipsed by the fireworks surrounding the 2008 presidential contest: Democrats are running strong Senate campaigns in states such as Mississippi, Alaska and North Carolina that Republicans have long taken for granted.

The outlook for the GOP is so grim that party leaders have readily conceded there is no chance they can regain control of the Senate in 2008, even though Democrats' current majority is slim, 51-49.

"If you have an R in front of your name, you better run scared," said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who says the party will do well if it holds its losses to three or four seats.

A loss of 3 or 4 seats is good news!

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-senate6-2008jul06,0,1446447.story

Hey so-called conservative republicans, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining!

And now I give you the howling dogs!

 

[Jones]

McCain Squirms on Birth Control Question


Elizabeth Holmes reports from Portsmouth, Ohio on the presidential race.
While John McCain often embodies an anything-goes attitude when talking to reporters, it doesn’t mean some subjects can’t make him sweat—say, birth control.
A female Los Angeles Times reporter inquired today about comments made earlier this week by McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett Packard.
At a breakfast with reporters, Fiorina suggested that individuals–and women in particular–be given more flexibility to determine what their health insurance plans should cover. “There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice,” she observed.
When McCain was asked for his position on the issue, he said—with a nervous laugh–“I certainly do not want to discuss that issue.”
The reporter pressed. “But apparently you’ve voted against—“
“I don’t know what I voted,” McCain said.
The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. “Is that still your position?” she persisted.
During the awkward exchange, with several lengthy pauses, McCain said he had no immediate knowledge of the vote. “I’ve cast thousands of votes in the Senate,” McCain said, then continued: “I will respond to—it’s a, it’s a…”
“Delicate issue,” the reporter offered, to a relieved laugh from McCain.
“I don’t usually duck an issue, but I’m—I’ll try to get back to you,” he explained.
After a pause, another reporter posed a question closer to McCain’s comfort zone: “Can I ask you about Russia?”

 

[tieguy]

McCain Squirms on Birth Control Question


Elizabeth Holmes reports from Portsmouth, Ohio on the presidential race.
While John McCain often embodies an anything-goes attitude when talking to reporters, it doesn’t mean some subjects can’t make him sweat—say, birth control.
A female Los Angeles Times reporter inquired today about comments made earlier this week by McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett Packard.
At a breakfast with reporters, Fiorina suggested that individuals–and women in particular–be given more flexibility to determine what their health insurance plans should cover. “There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice,” she observed.
When McCain was asked for his position on the issue, he said—with a nervous laugh–“I certainly do not want to discuss that issue.”
The reporter pressed. “But apparently you’ve voted against—“
“I don’t know what I voted,” McCain said.
The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. “Is that still your position?” she persisted.
During the awkward exchange, with several lengthy pauses, McCain said he had no immediate knowledge of the vote. “I’ve cast thousands of votes in the Senate,” McCain said, then continued: “I will respond to—it’s a, it’s a…”
“Delicate issue,” the reporter offered, to a relieved laugh from McCain.
“I don’t usually duck an issue, but I’m—I’ll try to get back to you,” he explained.
After a pause, another reporter posed a question closer to McCain’s comfort zone: “Can I ask you about Russia?”

Obviously a big deal to a liberal reporter but not as much for the conservatives who preach abstinence.

 

[Jones]

Obviously a big deal to a liberal reporter but not as much for the conservatives who preach abstinence.

I honestly don't think that birth control is a liberal/conservative issue. If the use of birth control is your litmus test then you're essentially defining conservatives as christian fundamentalists. I know quite a few conservatives who don't "preach abstinence". The incident that sparked this particular line of questioning involved Carly Fiorina (who is clearly not a liberal) telling reporters at a breakfast that she felt that women should be able to purchase birth control through their company health plans. Considering that she is part of McCain's staff it was a perfectly reasonable question for the reporter to ask. And being that there is some serious speculation about McCain selecting her as his VP, it might actually be a "big deal" to the abstinence preaching christian fundamentalists whose support McCain will need in the general election.

 

[Hillboy]

McCain is one of the two libs running for pres!!!!!!!!

 

[UPS Lifer]

Obviously a big deal to a liberal reporter but not as much for the conservatives who preach abstinence.

This Health bill McCain voted against back in 2003 could have a lot of other points that made McCain vote the way he did.

This is what politics is all about. Who can spin something the best and make people believe it to be true.

My belief is that the more government social programs we have, the more dependent on government we become as a society. This to me is evident in the case of New Orleans vs Iowa or the aftermath of Katrina vs. the Midwest flooding just recently. Months from now you will not even remember anything about the midwest flooding. Those people are already taking it upon themselves to rebuild. Neighbor helping neighbor... They are not waiting for someone else to come in and they are not blaming someone else for their devastation.

I believe that it is my responsibility to provide for my welfare. It is not the government's responsibility. It is also my responsibility to reach out and help my neighbor when they need help. It is not the government's responsibility to tell me who needs help and dictate to me how I should help them.

BO will create government assistance the likes we have not seen since the Great Depression. This will be the true downfall of a dependent USA in years to come. ......everyone looking for a handout or someone to blame for the injustice caused to them!.

This is my opinion and I stand by it!

 

[tieguy]

I honestly don't think that birth control is a liberal/conservative issue. If the use of birth control is your litmus test then you're essentially defining conservatives as christian fundamentalists. I know quite a few conservatives who don't "preach abstinence". The incident that sparked this particular line of questioning involved Carly Fiorina (who is clearly not a liberal) telling reporters at a breakfast that she felt that women should be able to purchase birth control through their company health plans. Considering that she is part of McCain's staff it was a perfectly reasonable question for the reporter to ask. And being that there is some serious speculation about McCain selecting her as his VP, it might actually be a "big deal" to the abstinence preaching christian fundamentalists whose support McCain will need in the general election.

I'm not sure its that big a deal in the overall scope of things.

people with jobs and health care plans generally practice some type of family planning.

those with no health care plans still have options through free clinics to get birth control but don't always do so.

 

[tieguy]

This Health bill McCain voted against back in 2003 could have a lot of other points that made McCain vote the way he did.

This is what politics is all about. Who can spin something the best and make people believe it to be true.

My belief is that the more government social programs we have, the more dependent on government we become as a society. This to me is evident in the case of New Orleans vs Iowa or the aftermath of Katrina vs. the Midwest flooding just recently. Months from now you will not even remember anything about the midwest flooding. Those people are already taking it upon themselves to rebuild. Neighbor helping neighbor... They are not waiting for someone else to come in and they are not blaming someone else for their devastation.

I believe that it is my responsibility to provide for my welfare. It is not the government's responsibility. It is also my responsibility to reach out and help my neighbor when they need help. It is not the government's responsibility to tell me who needs help and dictate to me how I should help them.

BO will create government assistance the likes we have not seen since the Great Depression. This will be the true downfall of a dependent USA in years to come. ......everyone looking for a handout or someone to blame for the injustice caused to them!.

This is my opinion and I stand by it!

and that he's not telling us. Saw one of his speechs yesterday where he talks to a womens group about the disparity in wages between men and women. Talks like someone coming in from the outside and discovering this for the first time.

Well its been like that for a long time. Whats your plan to fix it?
why didn't you address it in congress?
why didn't you address it as a community activist?

this guy is giving things a lot of lip service right now and not offering many solutions.

We need a presidential debate where the moderator has total control and forces each candidate to give specific solutions on how they will fix the issues of the day. I'm tired of the flowery speeches with no substance.

 

[toonertoo]

Well unfortunately Tony Snow or Tim Russert wont be here to ask the hard questions. Mike Wallace seems like the next best one.

I think BO is living in a cave. Basically I know no women who makes less than their male counterparts. The only time I personally think there are disparities is if you have less education than your male counterpart. Otherwise you leave. You have something to sell, yourself. We make the same regardless of sex, dairy queen pays the same, factories pay the same, they usually increase your wage on time and merit if not controlled by a union. If you are being screwed by your boss in a non union factory, then its time to stand up or move on, it is against the law isnt it??????. To discriminate against women?
I truly dont think we need Obama to fix it..............Hes already going to fix everything. My question is who is going to pay for it all. I for 1 will take my retirment at whatever it is, and live underground before I will pay for more social problems than I do now.

 

[moreluck]

Mike Wallace is like in his 90's.......Maybe his son Chris Wallace from FOX could do it.

 

[toonertoo]

Mike Wallace is like in his 90's.......Maybe his son Chris Wallace from FOX could do it.

My bad, I meant Chris. Thanks

 

[moreluck]

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...



The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

 

[wkmac]

Well, so much for the theory that a republican President absolutely won't rasie taxes!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/politics/main4302521.shtml

WOW! WHAT A REBOUND!

I guess McCain saw Obama's numbers improve with all his flip flopping that he thought he'd try it himself on for size. Problem with flippers is they have no core values to begin with and it comes down to fingers in the wind to try and figure where they will go next. You know, like Bill Clinton!

 

[moreluck]

Bill Clinton would have been better off if he HAD left his fingers in the wind. The dirty hound dog!!

 

[UPS Lifer]

I have mixed feelings about "flip flopping". If it is used to get votes that is deceitful and a form of fraud. On the other hand, we all have to be willing to look at other perspectives and be able to change our thought process to realize when it is time to alter a view on some issue based on the current needs and the current circumstance.

It is my opinion that a good leader is very fluid in his/her decision making process. Life is fluid and we need to adapt to changing situations on a regular basis. This does not make you a flip-flopper.... but it does make you an informed leader willing to make the tough decisions in the best interest of the folks who you are responsible for.

Your core values are what you need to hold on to. These are the things about you that don't change on a regular basis and you stay the course even in the roughest storm.