New Election Thread

[Tweedling]

So you're counting the Forrestal fire as an example of McCain's ineptitude? That's like blaming JFK for getting in the way of Oswald's bullet. And the fact that McCain, as an admiral's son, requested a combat tour in Vietnam and refused an opportunity for early release from his Hanoi imprisonment don't exactly jibe with the intended portrayal by anti-McCain activists as a sissy enjoying a comfy career as the son of an admiral. The man spent more than 5 years as a POW and was beaten, stabbed and tortured by his captors. There are plenty of things to pick on McCain about, but his military career is not one of them. He served honorably and trying to belittle his service only makes for ugly and seemingly desperate politics.

no no no. Don't stop her now! She's making her point.

[MrRain422]

I have the utmost respect for McCain's service. It was honorable and heroic. I just don't think that it necessarily qualifies him to be President, and it certainly doesn't get him off the hook for everything in the way that he and his campaign want it to. I disagree with denigrating his service but I also think that it's healthy and prudent to have a critical eye for when it is relevent and when it is not.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Doing his job?

Well, technically, Bill Clinton was doing his job too ...

[Central Scrutinizer]

There's some good music on the DNC tonight http://www.demconvention.com/thursday-schedule/

 

As far as McCain being shot down and all that jazz...5 planes wrecked on 34 missions?Not a sweet record to brag about. He should have been grounded for life after his second crash. Any other US pilot would of,but he was the son of a four star Admiral....and so goes his story.

 

McCain is not the same dude today as he was used to be.It seems at one time he may have been a swell guy on a good path.Now? He's flip flopping on every issue and continuing the lies and propaganda about Iraq that Bush still goes with. If you think Bush is doing a fantastic job then McCain is your guy.

McCain, despite his record, stayed on the job. Bush didn't.

 

I would suggest everyone (self included) if you make specific comments about a candidate, you need to cite specifics. Any Dems can remember how annoying the term "flip flopper" was. Cite the specific issue and how he changed his position. Just passing it off as past history fails to enlighten someone who doesn't know that specific detail. We all benefit.

[Central Scrutinizer]

So you're counting the Forrestal fire as an example of McCain's ineptitude? That's like blaming JFK for getting in the way of Oswald's bullet. And the fact that McCain, as an admiral's son, requested a combat tour in Vietnam and refused an opportunity for early release from his Hanoi imprisonment don't exactly jibe with the intended portrayal by anti-McCain activists as a sissy enjoying a comfy career as the son of an admiral. The man spent more than 5 years as a POW and was beaten, stabbed and tortured by his captors. There are plenty of things to pick on McCain about, but his military career is not one of them. He served honorably and trying to belittle his service only makes for ugly and seemingly desperate politics.

You could complain that JFK got his PT boat run over (or was that Cliff Robertson?).

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. But Republicans complaining about anyone besmerching McCain's record is pot kettle black: Swift Boat.

 

That said you would think this stuff should be off limits. Bush got a relatively free pass (other than Fehrenheit 9/11) on his military record, while Clinton took his knocks for lack of.

 

The winner will be the commander in chief, of course. Military record is not off limits, but should be addressed with a degree of deference.

[Gobias Industries]

I wonder if she had a problem with John Kerry running on his service in Vietnam.

 

I think the difference is that John Kerry wasn't justifying his cred with "I served in Vietnam." McCain is using his POW-ness as a way to shirk responsibility for his increasingly less maverick voting record and to justify his positions (and "I'm a POW" is scarcely a justification for claiming knowledge of military diplomacy, starting wars, continuing wars, the economy, you get the picture). And plus, if he is sticking so closely to his "POW-ness," he should at least have the balls to vote more than 40% to help his fellow veterans.

[ikol]

That said you would think this stuff should be off limits. Bush got a relatively free pass (other than Fehrenheit 9/11 and Dan Rather) on his military record, while Clinton took his knocks for lack of.

 

Fixed it.

[Hixter]

Let's face it - the average person cares very little about politics, doesn't invest much effort into investigating the issues and is eager to lap up anything that makes their favorite candidate look good and his/her opponent look bad. So you wind up with half-truths about crashed planes and closet Muslims and I think the candidates are ok with it. Then it's easier to run on the basis of your speaking ability and charm and your opponent's weaknesses instead of your plans and promises. Unfortunately, the media lets them get away with it by and large and rarely ask the tough questions.

 

I lost a lot of respect for Obama when he chose a vice-president who voted for the Iraq war after a year of making it the centerpiece of his campaign. I'm not sure that change that much "change" is going on. I wish he'd just come out and say that the war in Iraq is just about finished, a plan to bring the troops home is in the works and *then* detail his plan to win the war in Afghanistan. *That* would be change. Hell, I wish McCain would do the same thing. We're in danger of losing in Afghanistan, and it will have dire consequences for the rest of the world if we do.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Fixed it.

True. And you see what happened to Dan ...

[sweetheart-mine]

I wonder when someone will start advancing the argument that John McCain was involved in an immoral activity when he was shot down.

i guess that wouldn't be p.c. in today's america. someone says he was doing his job. that's true. was it a moral job? maybe to some it doesn't matter. apparently to a lot it doesn't matter, actually. that's just my impression and it could be wrong. it does matter to me.

 

john kerry wasn't "lucky" enough to become a five-year p.o.w., an experience that might have advanced his political career way beyond where it has gone and where it will ever go. i don't think it deserved to go farther than it has gone, though, and neither does mccain's -- on their war experiences only for starters. (bjorn, i'm reacting to a bunch of posts -- yours was an apt lead-in is all, thank you!)

[OOO]

Alright time for the big speech. 45 years to the day after "I have a dream". I'm interested to see what he's got.

[sweetheart-mine]

I lost a lot of respect for Obama when he chose a vice-president who voted for the Iraq war after a year of making it the centerpiece of his campaign.

you do have a point, but really, washington people who didn't vote for the iraq invasion are hard to find, especially the ones with "experience," and especially the ones with "foreign-policy experience." at least biden has called his iraq invasion vote a mistake, and for quite some time. people tried to wrestle that word out of hillary clinton for years, and i don't know if they've succeeded even yet. (oh i think they did succeed, a few months ago.) obama's choices were very limited when it comes to your criterion. he could have asked kucinich to be his v.p. nominee, but would that get us out of iraq? unfortunately, no, because obama would have zero chance of being elected. the irony kills me. kucinich is one of the very few in congress whose instinct to say what he really thinks seems to outweigh his ambition in most instances, but he'll never make it to the super-national stage. it's a miracle he keeps getting elected to do anything.

[bjorn_skurj]

According to minutes of research on the Internet, McCain starting out was not the sharpest of aviators (in the Navy, they are aviators, not pilots, which are a whole 'nother thing in the Navy), probably losing at least two jets, which are not cheap, to bad aviating - he let one stall out while landing and hit wires with another one. (It was not McCain's jet that fired the rocket that started the Forrestal fire.) He apparently got better, though, leading several successful sorties and being awarded the Bronze Star and the Navy Commendation Medal. His mission when he was shot down was to take out a power plant. The Vietnamese had pretty good anti-aircraft defenses, courtesy of the Soviet Union, so it would be unfair to blame him for being shot down.

Just after the Forrestal fire, he was quoted by NYT reporter R.W. Apple as saying this: "It's a difficult thing to say. But now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam."

He did, though, until he was shot down.

[tugmoose]

A very

ad.

[Hixter]

It's difficult to find anything about McCain's flying history (Forrestal and the shootdown are exceptions) on the Internet that don't come from a highly biased political website. I'd want to see the official Navy after action reports before I'd write anything off as bad piloting.

 

As yet another indicator of the willful donning of political blinders, I wonder how many chickenhawk squawkers know that McCain's son served in Iraq?

[Tweedling]

"8 is enough!"

[jmacomber68w]

"8 is enough!"

 

 

Is that what they were chanting? Everytime I hear a chant I just assume its "yankees suck"

[bjorn_skurj]

It's difficult to find anything about McCain's flying history (Forrestal and the shootdown are exceptions) on the Internet that don't come from a highly biased political website. I'd want to see the official Navy after action reports before I'd write anything off as bad piloting.

 

As yet another indicator of the willful donning of political blinders, I wonder how many chickenhawk squawkers know that McCain's son served in Iraq?

Well, I confess I resorted to the Wiki, but everything was pretty well cited. If you believe the original sources, that is.

I confess also to misreading it in the first place - the plane he hit the wires with did not crash. Still, though, that's not good flying. But, it should be noted that some of our greatest presidents - Washington, Lincoln, FDR - couldn't even fly an airplane.

 

Wiki article

[Analogman]

As a veteran, I respect Senator McCain's military service - but, he is not who we need to be leading the country.

 

8? I'd say 4 was too many.

 

I hope the young people out there are paying attention - and that they vote for Senator Obama.

[Party @ the Moontower]

There are plenty of things to pick on McCain about, but his military career is not one of them. He served honorably and trying to belittle his service only makes for ugly and seemingly desperate politics.

 

 

McCain and his crew are running on the POW thing for all it's worth, so of course there will be some scrutiny and criticism on the subject. They only mention it all the time, that seems like desperate politics to me.

 

One of the main reasons I am not voting for McCain is because he voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congres...3/votes/missed/

 

Why would a former POW vote to torture POW's? Why would a former POW fight public access to POW/MIA Files? He is a war hero so he's earned a PC patriotic pass to do whatever he wishes...which will be war and more war.

[Party @ the Moontower]

I wonder how many chickenhawk squawkers know that McCain's son served in Iraq?

 

Well if M is voted into office Jimmy & Jack will have lots of wars to fight in. In January of this year McCain said this, "It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars."I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/m...ll_n_83459.html

[Tweedling]

Well if M is voted into office Jimmy & Jack will have lots of wars to fight in. In January of this year McCain said this, "It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars."I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/m...ll_n_83459.html

Just hear that today? It's not news. Huffington Post, eh?

[Gobias Industries]

I'm happy with that speech.

[bjorn_skurj]

Honestly, I was not blown away by Obama's speech. I think he swung, but did not connect.

[Hixter]

"I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

 

Sounds like the truth to me, regardless of which party is running the show. It only takes a cursory glance at history to see that it's true. Obama has come out strong about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Darfur, so the chances of a bloodless presidency are so low as to approach zero. The next president is going to make decisions that will kill people. It's a certainty.