or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Swiftboating of John McCain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Swiftboating of John McCain

post #1 of 192
Thread Starter 
I watched Face the Nation this Sunday, and Wes Clark was interviewed. Here's the video.

It starts out with Bob Schieffer quoting McCain supporters saying that McCain is obviously more qualified than Obama. Then Schieffer asks Clark about a comment that he had made, saying that McCain didn't have executive experience. The outrage and incredulity in Schieffer's voice is strong: "John McCain hasn't been tested? JOHN MCCAIN? But he was shot down in Vietnam!!! Obama was never riding in a fighter plane and got shot down!!!!!"
Clark: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
Schieffer: "REALLY?!?!" :stunned incredulity:

(here's more of the Clark quote)
Quote:
I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility.

OK, so now the McCain campaign issues a press release saying the following:
Quote:
If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates.

And today even Obama denounced Clark's comments, at least indirectly.

It seems to me that Clark was absolutely right to question the media's assumption that having been shot down and being a POW in Vietnam makes you more qualified to be president than Obama. That's not "questioning McCain's service to his country." And let's compare that to the swiftboating of John Kerry...
post #2 of 192
The issue here is whether or not McCain is more qualified than Obama with regard to his military credentials.

He absolutely is.

No, being shot down doesn't necessarily qualify him. But his ordeal did instill (or so I would think) an understanding war Obama doesn't have. He's also been involved in military issues for most of his career, including his service on the Armed Services Committee. He's far more knowledgeable than Obama on these issues.

Now, let's look at Clark: His comments are only accurate and appropriate if one assumes he's both impartial and intellectually honest. He's neither. Clark praised John Kerry for his service, which of course was a joke compared to McCain. Clark praised Kerry's "moral courage" resulting from his service. The Democrats portrayed Kerry as a full blown War Hero™...and Clark helped lead the charge. According to him, Kerry was more qualified than Bush because of his service. Why does the standard change for John McCain?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 192
Thread Starter 
Watch the video, it's not just about military credentials as an end in itself - the assumption is that, because of his military experience, McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama. Listen to the outrage in Schieffer's voice when he questions Clark. It's at about the 1-minute mark. Schieffer is not just saying that McCain has more military credentials, he's saying that it makes him more qualified to be president.

You're probably right that people - maybe even Clark himself - used Kerry's military experience as an advantage over Bush. Just like McCain, whose virtually every advertisement and every speech talks about it. They're the same in that respect.

But what strikes me is the difference between how Kerry's was attacked vs McCain. People said that Kerry falsified every aspect of his military experience. They war purple heart bandaids, mocking Kerry's war wounds. In contrast, Clark praised McCain's service, but just questioned the assumption that being a POW is relevant executive experience.
post #4 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But his ordeal did instill (or so I would think) an understanding war Obama doesn't have. He's also been involved in military issues for most of his career, including his service on the Armed Services Committee. He's far more knowledgeable than Obama on these issues.

Let's focus on the merits of each candidate's foreign policy. At this stage, the differences between the policies vastly outweigh the relative qualifications of the persons making them.

^Damn that was a pretty good.
post #5 of 192
Thread Starter 
ShawnJ rocks hard!
post #6 of 192
Are you people really trying to compare that to the Swiftboating of John Kerry?

There is absolutely no comparison at all. A reporter brought up McCain getting shot down as a reason he is experienced enough for the presidency. That is ridiculously stupid and Clark called it out as it should have been.

This is a complete non-issue.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #7 of 192
John Kerry was swiftboated because the GOP knew he was going to run on his war record and that Kerry's record made Bush look like he skirted his Vietnam duty. They had no choice but to attack Kerry's war record so he'd look just as marginalized as Bush. They simply had no choice.

Now we're looking at the exact reverse. John McCain is running on his war record and he's running on it hard. Every single advertisement and web banner shows him as he walked off that boat after coming home from Vietnam. He makes note of it in every TV ad.

Now if I were a card carrying member of the GOP and McCain were a Democrat then you know goddamned good and well I'd be looking for ways to tear McCain's service down a notch or two. I'd simply have no choice.

The first thing I'd do is question McCain's mental and emotional trauma suffered during his captivity. I'd start asking psychologists in a public forum how one might be permanently damaged mentally from such a prolonged and horrendous captivity. I'd then use those known, documented, and scientific studies about post-traumatic stress disorder and apply those directly to the decision making prowess of a future president.

Then I'd start asking questions about McCain's physical trauma suffered during his crash and how badly he was mended by the Vietnamese. I'd start asking doctors and experts in the field about how this could affect one's outlook on life and how that outlook might negatively affect one's decision making processes.

And then I'd close the argument by connecting McCain's PTSD to his well known outbursts of anger in the Sentate and conclude on every TV ad... "McCain! A war hero unfit for command!"

If I were Howard Dean that's how'd I'd starting chipping away at McCain's armour.

But the DNC doesn't have the "testicular fortitude" to run a GOP style campaign.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #8 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Are you people really trying to compare that to the Swiftboating of John Kerry?

There is absolutely no comparison at all. A reporter brought up McCain getting shot down as a reason he is experienced enough for the presidency. That is ridiculously stupid and Clark called it out as it should have been.

This is a complete non-issue.

That's the point of the thread. Get past the title. The point is that criticism of Clark by the right-wingers for making this comment is really fucking incredulous. It's the right wingers who are trying to call this a smear campaign, in mock outrage! outrage! at the mere possibility that someone might question John McCain's service (which no one did).
post #9 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The issue here is whether or not McCain is more qualified than Obama with regard to his military credentials.

No it's not. No one said "with regard to his military credentials" except you. You made that up to change the meaning of the issue.

The issue here is whether McCain is necessarily better qualified to be president because of his service and his service alone.

He is not.

There are thousands more important things to being qualified to be president than military experience.
post #10 of 192
I think it's wonderful to watch a staunch Obama supporter running "a different kind of campaign."

Yep. "Change"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #11 of 192
Did you have a green screen behind you when you threw out that awkward, unfunny line?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #12 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

John Kerry was swiftboated because the GOP knew he was going to run on his war record and that Kerry's record made Bush look like he skirted his Vietnam duty. They had no choice but to attack Kerry's war record so he'd look just as marginalized as Bush. They simply had no choice.

Now we're looking at the exact reverse. John McCain is running on his war record and he's running on it hard. Every single advertisement and web banner shows him as he walked off that boat after coming home from Vietnam. He makes note of it in every TV ad.

Now if I were a card carrying member of the GOP and McCain were a Democrat then you know goddamned good and well I'd be looking for ways to tear McCain's service down a notch or two. I'd simply have no choice.

The first thing I'd do is question McCain's mental and emotional trauma suffered during his captivity. I'd start asking psychologists in a public forum how one might be permanently damaged mentally from such a prolonged and horrendous captivity. I'd then use those known, documented, and scientific studies about post-traumatic stress disorder and apply those directly to the decision making prowess of a future president.

Then I'd start asking questions about McCain's physical trauma suffered during his crash and how badly he was mended by the Vietnamese. I'd start asking doctors and experts in the field about how this could affect one's outlook on life and how that outlook might negatively affect one's decision making processes.

And then I'd close the argument by connecting McCain's PTSD to his well known outbursts of anger in the Sentate and conclude on every TV ad... "McCain! A war hero unfit for command!"

If I were Howard Dean that's how'd I'd starting chipping away at McCain's armour.

But the DNC doesn't have the "testicular fortitude" to run a GOP style campaign.

Trust me on that one.

Or go ask a any homeless Vietnam war veteran.

McLame is damaged goods, "Obama's surrogates" my ass, someone in the media needs to push McSame's buttons, and let us all watch his head implode, or explode, or whatever.

Unfit for command, unfit to lead.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #13 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

John Kerry was swiftboated because the GOP knew he was going to run on his war record and that Kerry's record made Bush look like he skirted his Vietnam duty. They had no choice but to attack Kerry's war record so he'd look just as marginalized as Bush. They simply had no choice.

Now we're looking at the exact reverse. John McCain is running on his war record and he's running on it hard. Every single advertisement and web banner shows him as he walked off that boat after coming home from Vietnam. He makes note of it in every TV ad.

Now if I were a card carrying member of the GOP and McCain were a Democrat then you know goddamned good and well I'd be looking for ways to tear McCain's service down a notch or two. I'd simply have no choice.

The first thing I'd do is question McCain's mental and emotional trauma suffered during his captivity. I'd start asking psychologists in a public forum how one might be permanently damaged mentally from such a prolonged and horrendous captivity. I'd then use those known, documented, and scientific studies about post-traumatic stress disorder and apply those directly to the decision making prowess of a future president.

Then I'd start asking questions about McCain's physical trauma suffered during his crash and how badly he was mended by the Vietnamese. I'd start asking doctors and experts in the field about how this could affect one's outlook on life and how that outlook might negatively affect one's decision making processes.

And then I'd close the argument by connecting McCain's PTSD to his well known outbursts of anger in the Sentate and conclude on every TV ad... "McCain! A war hero unfit for command!"

If I were Howard Dean that's how'd I'd starting chipping away at McCain's armour.

But the DNC doesn't have the "testicular fortitude" to run a GOP style campaign.

Those are the things you'd do if you were a somewhat rational Democrat trying to run that type of campaign. If you were a Republican, you'd just call him a traitor and a Manchurian candidate, and say he made the whole thing up.
post #14 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I watched Face the Nation this Sunday, and Wes Clark was interviewed. Here's the video.

It starts out with Bob Schieffer quoting McCain supporters saying that McCain is obviously more qualified than Obama. Then Schieffer asks Clark about a comment that he had made, saying that McCain didn't have executive experience. The outrage and incredulity in Schieffer's voice is strong: "John McCain hasn't been tested? JOHN MCCAIN? But he was shot down in Vietnam!!! Obama was never riding in a fighter plane and got shot down!!!!!"
Clark: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
Schieffer: "REALLY?!?!" :stunned incredulity:

Clark is 100% right. Getting shot at or shot down isn't executive experience. Serving in the Senate is also not executive experience which is why I have believe it is harder for senators to become president even though they might be better known than most politicians. When I noted who I was voting for earlier this year I highlighted governors.

That said, McCain did go to Naval School and did promote to the rank of captain. He can probably argue legitimately within the military framework that those teach and provide leadership experience.

Quote:
OK, so now the McCain campaign issues a press release saying the following:

And today even Obama denounced Clark's comments, at least indirectly.

It seems to me that Clark was absolutely right to question the media's assumption that having been shot down and being a POW in Vietnam makes you more qualified to be president than Obama. That's not "questioning McCain's service to his country." And let's compare that to the swiftboating of John Kerry...

I think it good to question pretty much every media assumption. I wish they would do this with both candidates and roast them over the coals if they don't provide access or answers.

I think that a couple things will come out of this. One if Obama or people speaking/working in his behalf keep preempting attacks with flowery rhetoric as Clark does, "We need to move away from the old politics of left and right as I discuss in a "new" fashion this attack on McCain, then there will be higher negatives and repercussions for the campaign.

Second if McCain "reports for duty" at the convention but afterward, a group of vets is found who force him to parse that he threw medals, but they weren't his medals, or that he participated in a group that alleged atrocities but HE didn't allege atrocities, etc. then it will all have been fair game since McCain brought it up. However I doubt any of this will happen. I suspect the same will be true with comparing wounds and medals given for them, dates of events, and judgments of officers and fellow soldiers serving in the same time, place, under the command of, etc.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #15 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Did you have a green screen behind you when you threw out that awkward, unfunny line?

It's not funny to you because it's true, grove. We've heard for months about how Obama, in his snobbish glory, was "a different kind of politician" and "CHANGE!" and somehow "going to run a different kind of campaign." Sure, guys. Sure.

Thus he sends Wes Clark out to do it for him. That's "CHANGE!"

(...and all of the ones that wailed about the treatment of Kerry are exposed for the politically expedient people they are. Same. Old. Shit.)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #16 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

It's not funny to you because it's true, grove. We've heard for months about how Obama, in his snobbish glory, was "a different kind of politician" and "CHANGE!" and somehow "going to run a different kind of campaign." Sure, guys. Sure.

Thus he sends Wes Clark out to do it for him. That's "CHANGE!"

(...and all of the ones that wailed about the treatment of Kerry are exposed for the politically expedient people they are. Same. Old. Shit.)

Here let me fill it for you, <tinkle>, <tinkle>, <tinkle>, ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #17 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Clark is 100% right. Getting shot at or shot down isn't executive experience. Serving in the Senate is also not executive experience which is why I have believe it is harder for senators to become president even though they might be better known than most politicians. When I noted who I was voting for earlier this year I highlighted governors.

That said, McCain did go to Naval School and did promote to the rank of captain. He can probably argue legitimately within the military framework that those teach and provide leadership experience.



I think it good to question pretty much every media assumption. I wish they would do this with both candidates and roast them over the coals if they don't provide access or answers.

I'm glad we agree on that part.

Quote:
Second if McCain "reports for duty" at the convention but afterward, a group of vets is found who force him to parse that he threw medals, but they weren't his medals, or that he participated in a group that alleged atrocities but HE didn't allege atrocities, etc. then it will all have been fair game since McCain brought it up. However I doubt any of this will happen. I suspect the same will be true with comparing wounds and medals given for them, dates of events, and judgments of officers and fellow soldiers serving in the same time, place, under the command of, etc.

McCain has definitely been "reporting for duty," to an even greater extent than Kerry ever did, IMO. And though the medals won't be the issue, he's got his own unique problems with other vets: They have been savaging McCain since he (and Kerry and a few others) were instrumental in opening up relations with Vietnam in the 1990s. These groups thought McCain wasn't as open as he should have been to the view that POWs were still there. As I recall, they were particularly nasty towards McCain, and many of those same attacks were reused against him in his 2000 campaign: He's unfit because he was tortured into craziness, he was a traitor for cooperating with his captors (he did make a propaganda video for them), he lied about being tortured, etc.
post #18 of 192
I think it's pretty obvious to everyone around here that you can't attack John McCain in the same way the GOP attacked Kerry. They have completely different service records and circumstances.

I doubt you'll find anything negative about John McCain's actual actions or combat record before or after the war. I doubt you'll find anything McCain has said against the war other than the fact that he admitted he didn't truly love his country until he was deprived of her company.

However, that doesn't mean his captivity, the impact of that captivity and torture had on the man's mind is out of bounds or unquestionable. I think it perfectly fair to question how his psyche has been permanently damaged due to his years of captivity. I also understand the shit storm of outrage the GOP and it's merry band of yapping dogs will cause of Dems go this route. Again, I doubt very much that Dems or their surrogates will go that route.

I believe you can knock him down a handful of percentage points if you raise these questions though.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #19 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm glad we agree on that part.

McCain has definitely been "reporting for duty," to an even greater extent than Kerry ever did, IMO. And though the medals won't be the issue, he's got his own unique problems with other vets: They have been savaging McCain since he (and Kerry and a few others) were instrumental in opening up relations with Vietnam in the 1990s. These groups thought McCain wasn't as open as he should have been to the view that POWs were still there. As I recall, they were particularly nasty towards McCain, and many of those same attacks were reused against him in his 2000 campaign: He's unfit because he was tortured into craziness, he was a traitor for cooperating with his captors (he did make a propaganda video for them), he lied about being tortured, etc.

So, was he tortured into craziness or did he lie about it?

I didn't know he made a propaganda video with his captors?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #20 of 192
Quote:
It's not funny to you because it's true, grove. We've heard for months about how Obama, in his snobbish glory, was "a different kind of politician" and "CHANGE!" and somehow "going to run a different kind of campaign." Sure, guys. Sure.

And how does this conflict with a theme of a "a different kind of campaign"?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #21 of 192
Everyone's missing the irony here. McCain has recruited the same fellow who ran the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercials.

Quote:
Seems as if the McCain camp has recently rolled out a new surrogate by the name of Bud Daythe same Bud Day who was in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercials.

So the question nowwhy employ this guy? Doesnt McCain have access to dozens of other folks who could be very steady and able surrogates who could defend his military record? And doesnt this sort of undermine any criticism the McCain camp would have against people like Clark, who didnt come anywhere close to what the Swift Boaters did?

It's either a brilliant move or, since McCain did defend Kerry from their attacks in 2004, is it just flip-flopping as usual. I honestly wouldn't trust McCain in the same room as me now.
post #22 of 192
How do we know McCain was tortured like he says he was? How do we know he didn't betray his country? All we have is his "word" and some shit from a bunch of commies.

The real Rove play here isn't to question if McCain was damaged by his ordeal, but to question if he endured any kind of ordeal at all.

Sure, McCain and the media will sputter at the outrageousness, but you never stop. You find former Viet Cong with some confusing things to say. You put up front groups that relentlessly peddle the "McCain is lying about what happened to him in 'Nam" bit. You find inconsistencies in the record and McCain's recollections, no matter how trivial or irrelevant, and "demand answers." To the extent "answers" are not forthcoming, shriek to the high heavens about the "coverup."

Of course, to really make this work, you need a few things that the left lacks: an army of borderline retarded bloggers with nothing better to do than to examine the creases on old military documents so they can work themselves into a frenzy, a blog at about the level of, say, The Huffington Post, that has the ear of every mainstream journalist and a willingness to pass along any shit that surfaces as if it were the story of the century, and, finally but most importantly, a national news network that can give the "story" that last little push into "controversy", so that it becomes a legitimate topic of conversation ("McCain's Viet Nam Problem: How Serious Is it?").

In other words, never going to happen.

Oh, and for the love of Jesus, "Dan Rather" is not the rebuttal.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #23 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

It's not funny to you because it's true, grove. We've heard for months about how Obama, in his snobbish glory, was "a different kind of politician" and "CHANGE!" and somehow "going to run a different kind of campaign." Sure, guys. Sure.

Thus he sends Wes Clark out to do it for him. That's "CHANGE!"

(...and all of the ones that wailed about the treatment of Kerry are exposed for the politically expedient people they are. Same. Old. Shit.)

Hey, did you hear?

BushCorp. has decided to re-brand DECIDER 3.0 to MAVERICK. No word yet on whether it's companion software will be re-branded from BIG TIME 3.0 to ICEMAN.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #24 of 192
1996: Bob Dole is a war hero! Clinton is a draft dodger! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!

2000: Forget the war! Ignore the potential Vietnam-era AWOL-ness of our candidate, and his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge! He's got integrity!

2004: So what your candidate actually fought and was injured in the same war during which our candidate was so very much NOT AWOL! We mock his service and question the legitimacy of his injuries! Have a purple band-aid to wear at our convention!

2008: Only a certified war hero can lead this country! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!

Taken from TPM.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #25 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The issue here is whether or not McCain is more qualified than Obama with regard to his military credentials.

He absolutely is.

No, being shot down doesn't necessarily qualify him. But his ordeal did instill (or so I would think) an understanding war Obama doesn't have. He's also been involved in military issues for most of his career, including his service on the Armed Services Committee. He's far more knowledgeable than Obama on these issues.

Now, let's look at Clark: His comments are only accurate and appropriate if one assumes he's both impartial and intellectually honest. He's neither. Clark praised John Kerry for his service, which of course was a joke compared to McCain. Clark praised Kerry's "moral courage" resulting from his service. The Democrats portrayed Kerry as a full blown War Hero...and Clark helped lead the charge. According to him, Kerry was more qualified than Bush because of his service. Why does the standard change for John McCain?

Well for me military service should be a much smaller issue as far as qualifications go.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #26 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well for me military service should be a much smaller issue as far as qualifications go.

No offense, but tell that to George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, or Dwight D. Eisenhower.

However, McCain's military career is pale in comparison to the above. So it certainly is not, or should not be, a strong determining factor in this election.

Heck, see John McCain's early life and military career (1936-1981);

Quote:
McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math.

We've already had/have an administration that demonstrably doesn't know how to count.

No more years! Vote NO for McSame!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #27 of 192
Clark is of course 100% correct with what he said. At the same time McCain wins "I know what it means to send young and men into war ..." hands down.

Obama need to stay away from this. He's doing a good job of it but needs to scale back his attacks on McCain war service. Best to ignore it.
post #28 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No offense, but tell that to George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, or Dwight D. Eisenhower.

However, McCain's military career is pale in comparison to the above. So it certainly is not, or should not be, a strong determining factor in this election.

Heck, see John McCain's early life and military career (1936-1981);


We've already had/have an administration that demonstrably doesn't know how to count.

No more years! Vote NO for McSame!

Well according to this Abe Lincoln didn't have much of a military presence.

http://www.geocities.com/old_lead/abe.htm

I think he was one of the best!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #29 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Watch the video, it's not just about military credentials as an end in itself - the assumption is that, because of his military experience, McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama. Listen to the outrage in Schieffer's voice when he questions Clark. It's at about the 1-minute mark. Schieffer is not just saying that McCain has more military credentials, he's saying that it makes him more qualified to be president.

You're probably right that people - maybe even Clark himself - used Kerry's military experience as an advantage over Bush. Just like McCain, whose virtually every advertisement and every speech talks about it. They're the same in that respect.

But what strikes me is the difference between how Kerry's was attacked vs McCain. People said that Kerry falsified every aspect of his military experience. They war purple heart bandaids, mocking Kerry's war wounds. In contrast, Clark praised McCain's service, but just questioned the assumption that being a POW is relevant executive experience.

As far as I've been able to tell, Schaeffer is actually pro-Obama. I've seen him literally sneer at McCain before.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #30 of 192
Looks like the McCain's have forgotten to pay their property taxes on a condo in La Jolla, California. Guess that makes him more of a "regular guy" than an "elitist", huh?

Quote:
San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response.

God that non-elitist lifestyle sure is hard. You know, paying your bills and all that. Only elitists pay all their balls all the time. Elitists never forget to tell their money managers what bills to pay and not pay.

I guess this only proves that McCain truly is a MAVERICK™ (formerly known as DECIDER™ 3.0).
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #31 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well according to this Abe Lincoln didn't have much of a military presence.

http://www.geocities.com/old_lead/abe.htm

I think he was one of the best!

Of course there were many more POTUS that were as good as, or better than, the military rooted ones I mentioned.

My point is that if one has significant military leadership credibility, which McCain does not have, than that is a greater factor in selecting them as a leader, all other things being equal.

BTW, Abe is at the top of my list.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #32 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

At the same time McCain wins "I know what it means to send young men into war ..." hands down.

I understand what you mean. It would just be nice if we stopped defining "winning" as what plays best to the prejudices of the Beltway press corps. My point is that regardless of how McCain personally feels about sending troops into battle, he is the chief supporter of a war Americans hate. They disagree with him on his plan to keep troops in Iraq. So who cares about how much of a heavy heart he has? Americans think he's wrong. How that plays in the media aside, I don't see what's any less potent about that argument
post #33 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I understand what you mean. It would just be nice if we stopped defining "winning" as what plays best to the prejudices of the Beltway press corps. My point is that regardless of how McCain personally feels about sending troops into battle, he is the chief supporter of a war Americans hate. They disagree with him on his plan to keep troops in Iraq. So who cares about how much of a heavy heart he has? Americans think he's wrong. How that plays in the media aside, I don't see what's any less potent about that argument

Americans hate losing a war more than they hate fighting a war. The next election will have an element of "who's best to finish this off" and Barak may come up short on than. Look for Barak to tack right on the war. Then McCain will pounce. The surge worked and some messy days are to come for Obama.
post #34 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Americans hate losing a war more than they hate fighting a war. The next election will have an element of "who's best to finish this off" and Barak may come up short on than. Look for Barak to tack right on the war. Then McCain will pounce. The surge worked and some messy days are to come for Obama.

Well we know McSame isn't the person "who's best to finish this off" as we'll be there for the next hundred years. Like in Korea a war we didn't win.

This is where McSame as loser comes in as he was a POW for 5.5 years, America cut and ran on a war they could never win. America cut it's losses, and no one talks about the domino theory of communism anymore. So we won by leaving Vietnam, and since McSame suffers from PTSD, he's a pissed and angry man, and harbors a deep resentment from his personal suffering, because it was all for naught in his PTSD mind.

[CENTER]
McSame on a good day.[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #35 of 192
Well we'll see what's going to happen. When Obama moves to the right don't ruin the election for him please. Don't turn it into the referendum on Code Pink.
post #36 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm glad we agree on that part.

McCain has definitely been "reporting for duty," to an even greater extent than Kerry ever did, IMO. And though the medals won't be the issue, he's got his own unique problems with other vets: They have been savaging McCain since he (and Kerry and a few others) were instrumental in opening up relations with Vietnam in the 1990s. These groups thought McCain wasn't as open as he should have been to the view that POWs were still there. As I recall, they were particularly nasty towards McCain, and many of those same attacks were reused against him in his 2000 campaign: He's unfit because he was tortured into craziness, he was a traitor for cooperating with his captors (he did make a propaganda video for them), he lied about being tortured, etc.

Is it really to a greater extent? Did I miss the McCain 'Tour of Duty' book that should be out about right now to help roll us into the convention and have him report for duty?

Again I think McCain, Republicans and pretty much anyone who is not for Obama would not only welcome the points you mention, they are probably dreaming of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

How do we know McCain was tortured like he says he was? How do we know he didn't betray his country? All we have is his "word" and some shit from a bunch of commies.

The real Rove play here isn't to question if McCain was damaged by his ordeal, but to question if he endured any kind of ordeal at all.

Sure, McCain and the media will sputter at the outrageousness, but you never stop. You find former Viet Cong with some confusing things to say. You put up front groups that relentlessly peddle the "McCain is lying about what happened to him in 'Nam" bit. You find inconsistencies in the record and McCain's recollections, no matter how trivial or irrelevant, and "demand answers." To the extent "answers" are not forthcoming, shriek to the high heavens about the "coverup."

Of course, to really make this work, you need a few things that the left lacks: an army of borderline retarded bloggers with nothing better to do than to examine the creases on old military documents so they can work themselves into a frenzy, a blog at about the level of, say, The Huffington Post, that has the ear of every mainstream journalist and a willingness to pass along any shit that surfaces as if it were the story of the century, and, finally but most importantly, a national news network that can give the "story" that last little push into "controversy", so that it becomes a legitimate topic of conversation ("McCain's Viet Nam Problem: How Serious Is it?").

In other words, never going to happen.

Oh, and for the love of Jesus, "Dan Rather" is not the rebuttal.

Note to BRussell, this example above is why Republicans will be having wet dreams of Democrats bring up the issues you mentioned. Get an Addabox into some sort of large public mainstream forum and have him say he is for Obama. You can watch the hords run in the opposite direction.

BTW, Adda, shouldn't you be working much harder to make these points known? I suggest you start a blog on the Obama website, submit it to the Huffington Post, get this view of yours out there.


Please.... pretty please.... with sugar on top.... really... please..please...please.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

(some oddly inapt remarks)

Please.... pretty please.... with sugar on top.... really... please..please...please.

My point, this is Nick. Nick, my point. I don't believe you two have met.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #38 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Americans hate losing a war more than they hate fighting a war.

Tell that to Americans.

In all the latest polls from Time, Gallup, Bloomberg, ABC, and CBS, a solid majority of those polled want to get out within the next year or two regardless of whether we "win" or whether Iraq is "stable." Only the NBC poll shows just a plurality of voters wanting to get out. If Americans had a choice between losing the war and staying to fight, they roundly choose getting the hell out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

The next election will have an element of "who's best to finish this off" and Barak may come up short on than.

The election should be about "who will get us out of there" if we wanted to go by what Americans want.

We need someone like Biden in there as VP to just arrogantly laugh his ass off at anyone trying to bring up any other points about Iraq besides that. It would balance the gaffe-factor from the other times he opens his mouth.
post #39 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

How do we know McCain was tortured like he says he was? How do we know he didn't betray his country? All we have is his "word" and some shit from a bunch of commies.

The real Rove play here isn't to question if McCain was damaged by his ordeal, but to question if he endured any kind of ordeal at all.

Sure, McCain and the media will sputter at the outrageousness, but you never stop. You find former Viet Cong with some confusing things to say. You put up front groups that relentlessly peddle the "McCain is lying about what happened to him in 'Nam" bit. You find inconsistencies in the record and McCain's recollections, no matter how trivial or irrelevant, and "demand answers." To the extent "answers" are not forthcoming, shriek to the high heavens about the "coverup."

Of course, to really make this work, you need a few things that the left lacks: an army of borderline retarded bloggers with nothing better to do than to examine the creases on old military documents so they can work themselves into a frenzy, a blog at about the level of, say, The Huffington Post, that has the ear of every mainstream journalist and a willingness to pass along any shit that surfaces as if it were the story of the century, and, finally but most importantly, a national news network that can give the "story" that last little push into "controversy", so that it becomes a legitimate topic of conversation ("McCain's Viet Nam Problem: How Serious Is it?").

In other words, never going to happen.

Oh, and for the love of Jesus, "Dan Rather" is not the rebuttal.

Josh Marshall would probably publish this as a reader comment.

Email!
post #40 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Americans hate losing a war more than they hate fighting a war.

You know what they hate even more? Spending shit loads of money and getting lots of American kids killed for an invasion that turned out to be based on bullshit and an occupation that doesn't have any stable justification. We don't have a lot of analogous examples to demonstrate that point because, generally, US administrations haven't been so monumentally stupid.

Just because it's possible to talk of "winning the war" as if we are speaking about WWII doesn't mean it makes any sense.

Quote:
The next election will have an element of "who's best to finish this off" and Barak may come up short on than.

Why? I'm not aware of a single poll that doesn't favor Obama, as far as "who's best to finish this off." Hint-- "best" equals "get us out the quickest."

Quote:
Look for Barak to tack right on the war. Then McCain will pounce.

Aside from the queasy making image of McCain doing any "pouncing", are you high?


Quote:
The surge worked and some messy days are to come for Obama.

It did? So it's done and we're cool now? The Iraqi government got its breathing space and pulled it together and formed its coalitions and fielded its army and they're standing up, so we can stand down? Which is why all the troops are coming home, which makes Obama look stupid because he'll be calling for troop draw downs and they'll already be down?

No? We just turned another corner and bought some more Friedman Units and now, for reals, we can really start making some headway and everything up till now was what, practice?

I have bad news for you. Been to the well too many times. Pretty much nobody, outside of the cloistered little circle jerk of certain elements of the late, great Republican Party, is buying what you're selling.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Swiftboating of John McCain