The Swiftboating of John McCain - Page 2

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

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.

Originally Posted by mydo

This polling needs to focus on the swing states. States that aren't in play don't matter to some extent.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

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

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.



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.

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.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah you must have missed it.



Original release date: 1999, during first presidential run.
Re-release date: March 2008, during second presidential run.

In the same way that Kerry and his supporters were dreaming of the swiftboaters?

Originally Posted by mydo

This polling needs to focus on the swing states. States that aren't in play don't matter to some extent.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah you must have missed it.



Original release date: 1999, during first presidential run.
Re-release date: March 2008, during second presidential run.

Originally Posted by Northgate

A sensitive bunch aren't they?

A bit hair trigger too.

And all over what exactly?

Originally Posted by Northgate

Ahhhhhahahahahaha. You pwn3d his ass and it probably took you, what, three minutes on Amazon?

My god the bullshit is running high. "But...but...but...Kerry did it too. McCain's is sooo totally different."

I absolutely love how arrogant these wingnuts can get. They somehow believe that McCain's positions, policies, and character as somehow unassailable and then go off on rants of mockery wrt to Kerry.

I just looked at some comments at Red State where they're all going off "didn't Kerry run on his war record in 2004? Hypocrits!" Well, yeah. And Republicans beat his ass down for doing so. So don't get all hot and bothered when we beat your candidate down too.

And has anyone noticed that EVERY SINGLE BANNER AD for McCain uses the photos of him on the cover of that book? Yeah, he's not running on his war record at all. Not at all.

Assholes. All of them.

Originally Posted by Northgate

And could someone please tell the McCain camp to get it's "outrage" consistent please.

In one breath they say they're outraged by a statement from Wesley Clark that isn't all that offensive. And then they roll out a Swift Boat Vet to slam Clark for....wait for it....attacking a vet. LOL! So they're mad that they're getting supposedly "Swift Boated" while they actually employ a Swift Boater on their payroll.

And no one sees the irony here?

And now they're sending out other vets who are actually attacking Clark's record of service. Something Clark NEVER DID. He simply said serving the military and fighting a war are NOT necessarily prerequisites to be president. OMFG!

Could someone please tell me what's so goddamned offensive about that statement?

Originally Posted by addabox

Looks like we're drifting into "buh, buh, the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry were true, and therefore righteous, whereas to suggest that flying a plane doesn't necessarily qualify one to be president is an outrageous attack on the sanctity of the military and all it stands for!" territory.

Objective reality supports my bitter, irrational prejudices is the last refuge of the douchbag.

Unfortunately, this all dovetails with the lazy media's preset narrative (Republicans are always stronger on national defense, liberals are always obliged to be apologetic for being pussies), so they'll go with it without a moment's thought. Obama, or anyone perceived as being in his camp, simply won't be allowed to say a single word about McCain's self presentation as having accrued "qualifications" for "being ready" by spending time in a prison camp, even though that actually makes no sense.

The psychedelically weird conversation they're having right now, as if Clark had sneeringly dismissed McCain as a coward or pissed on a flag, attests to that.

Originally Posted by addabox

I think they've lost the concept of content, even amongst themselves. "Outrage" is just something you do. If nothing substantiative presents itself, you just get outraged by whatever comes along, even if it's bland as toast.

I wonder if there's a point that this hand gets overplayed-- where most people conclude that Republicans are shrill hysterics with malfunctioning bladders.

Originally Posted by Northgate

It now appears the McCain campaign is going into complete hysterics over Jim Webb's appearance on MSNBC last night. Jim Webb said McCain needed to "calm down".

That's right. He actually said the explosive and controversial words CALM and DOWN. Together in a sentence.

And now McCain's released some pretty funny statements. LOL!

Man, I thought McCain was a hero of war. I thought he was a man's man. He can't take a couple shots at his qualifications without losing it? He's running for fucking President for god's sake. He's this thin skinned?

Really?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Dude you are totally hilarious. What is even more funny is how your blinders allow you to believe that normal actions can be given some sort of evil political motive due to the person being discussed belonging to those evil Republicans.

How much money would you care to bet that any previously published books by Barack Obama are being reissued this year?

Oh wait... that is... da eval!!!

No it isn't. People toss out the copies when the interest is high and stop the presses on them when there isn't any interest. No evil additives required.

Hey Barack Obama has published a few books as well. Some of them are clearly about his family and growing up where as others merely proclaim him as the savior.

If some Republicans go after Obama and prove he is not in fact our messiah or savior, I DO believe his campaign will fail. He does run on that premise and it is a false one.



McCain is unassailable? What planet are you from?



They beat his as with his record, with his commanders, with his medical officers, with the people who signed or refused to sign the forms for his medals, etc.

If Democrats can pull the same thing off with McCain I say do it. I say bring it on. I've said this about three times and from it you get unassailable which is just ridiculously stupid.



Can you save a few and post them? I'm personally a little tired of the smiling Obama pictures with halos of light around his head or as I personally highlighted... no fewer than 5-10 instances of the words change and hope somewhere in the photo.



He said getting shot down isn't a prerequisite for being president. Serving in the military, well it certain appeared to make him a leader when he was running now didn't it.



What we are drifting into is you now ranting about weird phantoms attacking your rant.

I've begged for you to broadcast it as widely and clearly as possibly Addabox. I mean I don't know what more you can want. If your view is objective reality and everyone that is supposedly standing against it is just bitter douchbags, then what are those of us what are begging you to please spread your views far and wide.

I want Addabox as the guest columnist on Huffington Post. I want his blog to be the highlighted one at Obama's website. I want your views to be well known.



Can you at least beam be a feed from your planet because I am not seeing this hysterics.



Links please... pretty please... with sugar on top.

Originally Posted by trumptman

He said getting shot down isn't a prerequisite for being president.

More pointedly, McCain himself has downplayed the role that military backgrounds play in election seasons. In February 2003, the Arizona Republican said "Absolutely not," when asked whether "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief."

"Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent," he continued. "Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary."

Originally Posted by Northgate

Dude, what's with your obsession with "evil".

Originally Posted by Northgate

Dude, what's with your obsession with "evil". Because no one around here has used the word evil once.

I think the word you're looking for is "stupid". Maybe "lame". Hell, even "hilarious" does the trick.

And go find your own links. I'm not your Google slave.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Ahhh...this is frickin' hilarious.

When McCain accused Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran who lost both of her legs, of "cutting and running" he was asked whether or not he felt military service should be a part of politics he said, "Absolutely not."

Really?

One day it's cool.

The next day it's an "attack."

Third, there were about 200 members of Swift Boat Vets for Truth. Maybe some of them had faulty memories, or were down-the-line Republicans, or just plain didn't like Kerry. But all of them? Many Americans looked at the sheer volume and detail of their stories of Kerry, and concluded that where there was smoke, there was most likely fire.

If we see hundreds of men who served with McCain come out and denounce him, the American people will reconsider their opinion of him, as well. But I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen...

There have been only two incidents in which people officially associated with McCain have done anything approaching what Thomas and Wolfe predicted those dastardly, conniving Republicans would inevitably do. In February, a conservative talk radio host speaking at a McCain rally made reference to “Barack Hussein Obama.” McCain immediately condemned the statement, leading the embittered and embarrassed professional yacker to complain that McCain “threw me under the bus.” The only other smear-worthy episode occurred in March, when the McCain campaign suspended a low-level aide who provided a link on his Twitter account to a video featuring the rants of Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Heavy stuff, to be sure.

It’s curious how anyone could argue that a man with such visceral understanding of the capacity for what America’s enemies will do to our men and women in uniform doesn’t fully appreciate the cost of war. But even more troubling is the unmistakable pattern of these smears, all of them unsubtly alleging that McCain is an unhinged, mentally unstable warmonger who would deploy soldiers capriciously because he hasn’t truly experienced the horrors of ground battle. Indeed, the claims of these four men — and the short period of time in which they were all uttered — are so similar in tone that one would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility they were coordinated by the Obama campaign.

Nevertheless, the fears of Obama supporters that their candidate lies eternally vulnerable to GOP smears exists only in their fevered imaginations. The evidence of dirty Republican tricks has been utterly absent this campaign season. And if anyone has tried to smear Barack Obama in the way that Thomas, Wolfe and other Democratic partisans allege, it was not the Republican National Committee, but rather Hillary Rodham Clinton and her surrogates. In February, the Drudge Report claimed that the Clinton campaign circulated photos of Obama in a traditional East African turban and robe, with the message that the images showed him “dressed.” Asked if there was any truth to the smear that Obama is a Muslim, she infamously replied, “As far as I know,” it wasn’t the case. After the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, she said the results showed that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.”

The belief that “the Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968” is a comforting salve for Democrats. After all, it’s much easier for them to demonize conservatives than consider that the reason for their electoral defeats may lie with liberal ideas. Please don’t take that as a "smear.”

Originally Posted by trumptman

Oh look, thankfully someone is making the same point as me, and additionally, makes it better. (It is almost like they are paid to write for a living.)



Exactly! If the Democrats can find similar statements, from similar people, I say bring it on. I doubt the likelihood of it though and so does everyone with more than half a brain.

Then we can ask...who is smearing whom?



Versus....
Read'em and weep.

Originally Posted by Northgate

I'm going to channel SDW here...

The National Review? Politico? Please.

Originally Posted by Northgate

I'm going to channel SDW here...

The National Review? Politico? Please.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Oh look, thankfully someone is making the same point as me, and additionally, makes it better. (It is almost like they are paid to write for a living.)



Exactly! If the Democrats can find similar statements, from similar people, I say bring it on. I doubt the likelihood of it though and so does everyone with more than half a brain.

Then we can ask...who is smearing whom?



Versus....



Read'em and weep.

Originally Posted by trumptman

You do realize that about a third of your posts in this thread are you caricaturing people. Clearly you prefer strawmen to reality.

Media Falsely Claim Clark Attacked McCain's Service

Clark Praised McCain's Service, While Saying it Wasn't a "Qualification to be President"

Washington, DC -- Today Media Matters for America called on members of the media to set the record straight concerning the remarks of retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Sen. John McCain's military record -- a record Clark praised while also saying that it wasn't a "qualification to be president." Many in the media have falsely claimed that Gen. Clark attacked McCain's military service in comments made during the June 29 edition of CBS' Face the Nation.

Few have reported the entirety of what Clark actually said, including his praise of McCain's service, or that his comments actually repeated CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer's own words in response to Schieffer's statement that unlike McCain, Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

"The media driven notion that Gen. Clark somehow attacked Sen. McCain's military service is patently false. In fact, the opposite is true -- he praised it. This controversy was created and fueled by a media unwilling to live up to the basic journalistic standard of accuracy and thoroughness," said Karl Frisch, a spokesman for Media Matters. "It is a fact that Gen. Clark praised Sen. McCain's military service while also saying that such service is not a 'qualification to be president.' The media have a duty not only to Gen. Clark but the public to correct the record."

What did Clark actually say?

Many in the media have cropped Clark's June 29 Face the Nation interview to the short soundbite: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Those cropping the interview make two serious errors. First, they ignore that Clark was repeating Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer's words in response to Schieffer's statement that, unlike McCain, Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

Second, they ignore that shortly before that part of Clark's exchange with Schieffer, Clark praised McCain's service: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of 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."

Clark continued: "But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?' He hasn't made those calls, Bob."

If you didn't think this was a coordinated attack on John McCain's credentials before, it's clear now that it is. Barack Obama's surrogates are telling the McCain campaign to "calm down" about attacks on his military record? Seriously? Now somehow Wes Clark's attacks are John McCain's fault? It's absurd. If Barack Obama can't control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?

OK. The Obama campaign is controlling what Wes Clark and Jim Webb are saying about McSame.


OK. The Obama campaign is not controlling what Wes Clark and Jim Webb are saying about McSame.

Huh???

Originally Posted by trumptman

You do realize that about a third of your posts in this thread are you caricaturing people. Clearly you prefer strawmen to reality.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Obama would not pledge to have the troops out before the end of his first term. He also has not pledged to have them out even if Iraq or the region becomes unstable. So how has Obama pledged to do anything to fulfill what the majority of those polled support? Oh wait... we asked them if they wanted cake, pie and pretty ponies and they said yes so John McCain hates America and lusts for blood.

Bring Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Originally Posted by trumptman

So really what is gained by pointing at polls that ask people if they want utopia and they say yes?

Originally Posted by trumptman

How is McCain the "chief" support of this war?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Where are the poll questions along the lines of would you end the war now even if it increased the likelihood of an attack on American soil?

Show me the poll questions where there is a negative consequence or concern for ending the war and then we can talk. Those polls reflect real considerations.

“General Clark probably wouldn’t get that much praise from this group. I can’t speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar.”

At some point I am going to internalize the notion that you can’t be patriotic unless you are a Republican, and unless your military service is used to elect Republicans, your opinions don’t matter. Right now, though, I just don’t understand it.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Statement from a McCain surrogate:



We've all learned that when a Republican is critical of a Democrat it's perfectly fine. I'm sure that bitch-cunt Andrea Mitchell will be hyperventillating all over the news tonight for this comment....wait....sorry, I was living in an alternate universe there for a second.

I love this quote from John Cole:

Originally Posted by Northgate

He gets all whiny when Fox refers to his wife as Baby Mama. Which isn't offensive at all.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Spin on, my left coast friend. Faux outrage to match Faux news.

You did catch the part where Michelle Obama referred to the baby mama/ baby daddy thing, right? You know, in her own voice. With her own words?

Thought so.

Originally Posted by Northgate

My babies daddy and Baby Mama are two completely different things. And you know it.