In an interview with Time on August 28, when asked to define honor, John McCain wouldn't. Read my books, he said. I've defined it in my books, why should I do it again?
Really? You mean to tell me that you are not willing (or cannot) define one of the mantras of your campaign? Not even a simple definition that an 8 year old could understand? C'mon John, humor us.
This points to a laziness and dismissive attitude that is disturbing and frankly, offensive. Don't study for the test, don't answer the questions asked, just fill in the scantron with a pretty picture and hope the teacher is so impressed with your artwork that they forget to grade your test.
This points to the larger issue. As Bill Burton from the Obama campaign commented in response to that disgusting education ad from the McCain campaign.
"Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."
You would think that you would at least look up with definition of a central theme (bludgeon) of your campaign before an interview, or have one to hand? And even if you didn't have the time or inclination, honor isn't that hard to define. Off the top of my head I came up with
standing up for what you believe in, even when facing adversity
keeping your word and following through on your promises
protecting those who can't protect themselves
I also like some of Merriam-Webster's definitions: "a keen sense of ethical conduct; "one's word given as a guarantee of performance"
But, after the flip flops on major issues like immigration and abortion, stealing your opponent's theme when yours proves ineffective and claiming that you've owned it all along, and choosing a VP who is thoroughly unprepared, embodies some of the ugliest memes of your party, and is conservatism wrapped up in feminist clothing, it's quite easy to see why McCain couldn't (or wouldn't) define honor.
It's difficult to define something that you no longer possess.