Obama's campaign attacks McCain's military service. [Archive]

Mosier

06-29-2008, 01:37 PM

Apparently Obama and his campaigners haven't learned to keep their traps shut about McCain's military service yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080629/pl_politico/11425

Questioning or attacking McCain's military record is the worst possible thing the Obama campaign can do, short of a scandal being uncovered. We know McCain was an effective military leader, we sympathize with the sacrifices he had to make, and there is absolutely no question that the man is a ferocious patriot. The only thing attacks like this can possibly accomplish is to marginalize voters who are planning to vote for Obama, but still have great respect for McCain's military record, like myself, most of my family, and most of my friends.

I honestly hope that Obama learns to knock it off about McCain's military service. I'm afraid that if he doesn't, he'll just keep pushing a lot of voters away until they start wondering why in the world they should even show up to the polls.

elucidator

06-29-2008, 01:40 PM

Wesley Clark was acting as a "surrogate for Obama"? Sez who?

Frank

06-29-2008, 01:45 PM

The quote would appear to be questioning McCain's executive and management record in the military. McCain was a pilot, not an executive or manager. Looks like a valid question to me.

The quote does not appear to be questioning McCain's courage or patriotism, which would be as egregious and filthy an attack as were the Swiftboaters in the last election. Nice spin to try to make it seem that way, though.

RTFirefly

06-29-2008, 01:52 PM

I missed the part that was an attack on McCain's military record. Could you clarify that?

Wes Clark said two things relating to McCain's military service:

1) "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Clark's right - McCain's valor and endurance while a prisoner in Hanoi all those years ago doesn't make him more fit to be President than he would otherwise be. But that doesn't impugn McCain's military service in the least.

2) "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."

Whether or not it was a wartime squadron is a factual question, and can be verified or contradicted. If Clark's right, it's simply true.

Monty

06-29-2008, 01:56 PM

Shayna

06-29-2008, 02:03 PM

This isn't even "news". I posted the exact same quote (and then some) back on June 15th (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9907073&postcount=146). I didn't see anyone going overboard with nefarious allegations against the Obama campaign back then. In fact, it didn't even raise an eyebrow, as not a single person even replied to it. It's a legitimate argument to make against McCain's "experience" to lead this country, especially coming from a General who knows what he's talking about.

smiling bandit

06-29-2008, 02:17 PM

His leadership role did come as a formal official appointment, but rather in his role in the POW camp.

RTFirefly

06-29-2008, 02:39 PM

In the Navy, pilots are managers. Flying is not their only job. That's got to be an interesting juxtaposition of roles. Who and what do pilots manage? How much time in their week is left over for managing, after they've done their flying, and handled whatever pre- and post-flight stuff a Navy pilot surely has to do?

Fish

06-29-2008, 02:40 PM

In reading the relevant portions of the article, I notice there's about two sentences of journalism scraped over about three paragraphs of text.

It says General Clark was "acting as a surrogate." I missed the part in the interview when he said he was a representative of the Obama Campaign. He supports Obama, but the article didn't even mention how Clark was associated with Obama except as a thinly veiled reference that Obama is Clark's shadowy puppet master, or whatever. Acting as surrogate indeed.

It said that in this function he "took a swipe at his military service." But I don't really see either of those two things proved. Somebody with an agenda wrote that article, because I saw a similar interview (http://youtube.com/watch?v=c5bYzL2y7xQ), and neither of these two points appear to be true, at least to me. General Clark isn't "taking a swipe" at Senator McCain's service, but rather putting the McCain Campaign's claims about the executive experience derived from that service into their proper context.
Barack Obama is not running on the basis of his national security experience. He's running on the basis of good judgment. That's why it's important to set the record straight. John McCain served. He served honorably and well, and we all admire what he did as a prisoner of war. John McCain, in national security leadership terms, for the office of the Presidency, is largely untested and untried, as he has not been there. Barack Obama doesn't claim that.

Mr. Moto

06-29-2008, 02:43 PM

Hmm. Well, the thing is, Wesley Clark himself is vulnerable to some charges himself. He was unquestionably removed from his command in Kosovo early, and while some have tried to spin this as a personnel matter, his boss at he time, Hugh Shelton, said it was for matters of integrity and character, not going into details.

Partisanship, some would charge, except that Shelton himself is a Democrat - he advised Edwards during his run, endorsed Hillary Clinton after that, and is being talked up for a Senate run in the future.

In any case, I've never liked Clark much - and criticism from him has little credibility with me. If that criticism came from Shelton, I'd listen closer - I never had an issue with him.

But I suspect that he won't criticize McCain in quite this way. Doesn't seem his style.

John Mace

06-29-2008, 03:03 PM

I don't see it as an attack on his military service, per se, but if McCain is "untested", what does that make Obama? And his comment that :“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” is definitely a cheap shot, since McCain has done a whole hell of a lot more in his life than that. Still, I expect things to heat up a lot more than this before November.

As for Clark being a "surrogate" for Obama, I would assume he was invited on Face the Nation to support Obama since he has endorsed him and is said to be on the list of possible VP candidates. "Surrogate" is probably too strong a word since it would lead one to believe that he is actually part of the campaign, which I don't believe he is.

Sam Stone

06-29-2008, 03:18 PM

I'm sorry - why is being a squadron commander not executive experience? Why is it only executive experience if it's in wartime? That part really confused me.

I think this is going to backfire, because if they're calling McCain's executive experience into question, that's got to make Obama look even worse. I've asked about his executive experience before, and all anyone has been able to come up with is, "He's running a great campaign! That's executive experience."

Except of course it's not - that's why you hire campaign managers. The candidate may or may not be involved in the day-to-day decision making of the campaign. But even if he is, don't you think it's a little weak to claim that Obama's executive experience qualifying him for being president is that he's doing a good job of running for president?

If Obama's team is as smart as they seem, they'll back off questioning McCain's resume, because McCain's resume makes Obama look like a schoolboy. Their best shot is to tie McCain to Bush, claim that he's old, out of touch, part of the past, set in his ways, and will represent four more years like the last eight.

Obama should be turning his youth and inexperience into an asset, instead of trying to claim that he measures up to McCain. He's the guy who represents change, new ways of thinking, freshness, vitality, and a 21st century outlook. Those are his tickets to the White House. If he goes toe-to-toe with McCain on resume, he's going to lose.

McCain's surrogate can retort: "So Obama doesn't think running a Navy squadron is executive experience? I guess that would be compared to what Obama was doing at the time... Oh yeah, he was snorting coke and partying with the other kids in school back then."

Lakai

06-29-2008, 03:27 PM

Questioning or attacking McCain's military record is the worst possible thing the Obama campaign can do, short of a scandal being uncovered.

I'm glad at least someone questioned whether his service qualifies him to be President.

McCain is playing a sharp political game by trying to demonize people questioning his war record. I say it is open to debate.

elucidator

06-29-2008, 03:35 PM

It appears to be a bit slicker than even that, first he has to suggest that someone is, in fact, questioning his record, and then bemoan it.

Bosstone

06-29-2008, 03:53 PM

I don't see it as an attack on his military service, per se, but if McCain is "untested", what does that make Obama?Someone who's not claiming that he has experience in these matters and is otherwise tested. The point here is that Obama and McCain are equally 'untested', but only one is claiming he isn't.

Sam Stone

06-29-2008, 03:58 PM

I'm glad at least someone questioned whether his service qualifies him to be President.

McCain is playing a sharp political game by trying to demonize people questioning his war record. I say it is open to debate.

Do you have a cite to McCain saying that his military service alone qualified him for being president? I don't recall anyone saying that. His military service is part of a long and distinguished resume which includes going to the National War College, the Naval Academy, being in the Navy for 23 years, CO of a Navy Fighter squadron, four years in the house, 21 years in the Senate, being the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, being the ranking member of the Transportation and Science Committee. Plus being member of a bunch of other committees. Author of five books.

What else? Oh yeah... Recipient of the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Here's Barack Obama's resume:

Education: JD from Harvard
Professional Experience: Attorney, Lecturer
Political Experience: State Senator in Illinois from 1996 to 2004, U.S. Senator from 2005-2008. Author of three books.

Seriously, every time Obama's campaign turns this into a debate about resumes, Obama is going to lose. There's absolutely nothing about his resume that says, "this guy is qualified to be president". Has hasn't even fulfilled a full term as a U.S. Senator, and he's spent most of that term campaigning for President. He has no military service at all - not even National Guard or Reserves.

In fact, that's all McCain's team has to say in response to Clark - "Wesley Clark thinks being a C/O of a Navy squadron doesn't count as executive experience. May we remind him that Barack Obama has no military service at all? Do we really want a commander in Chief who has absolutely no experience with the military life and traditions? And no other executive experience, either. He is an academic who practiced law for a few years, lectured in college a bit, then went into government. We'll be happy to compare Senator McCain's resume against Senator Obama's any time. Here, we have handouts..."

elucidator

06-29-2008, 03:59 PM

Liberal

06-29-2008, 04:15 PM

You mean an O-10 explained the responsibilities of an 0-6? Why, the nerve.

Sam Stone

06-29-2008, 04:52 PM

This is smelling less and less like teen spirit and more like Norwegian Brown, as in rat. There is nothing the McCain people would love more than for Obama to sneer upon McCain's military service (assuming they can't unearth pictures of him and Jane Fonda spitting on troops...) and nothing less likely for Obama to be dumb enough to do. So they got this stuff all ready, waiting for the first hint of dis....and they let fly at the merest hint, since that was as close as they were ever gonna get.

So Clark is a "surrogate", designated so by whoever wrote this. And then its just a short hop to "Obama says..." and then from there to "Obama hates our heroes, thats why he never wears a flag pin when saying the Pledge while boinking his Baby Mamma..."

And the shit aint even starting yet....

You think Wesley Clark is a rat? Like maybe an angry Clinton supporter who's torpedoing Obama? I think that's unlikely, but I guess it's possible.

More likely is that the Obama team figured Wesley Clark would be their point man to try to knock down McCain's military record a bit. Obama can't do it, becauuse McCain can just pummel him with, "Oh, I'm sorry. Where did YOU serve again?" But Clark is a bona fide General, which gives him the gravitas to go after McCain on military matters. They know they can't get him on courage or dedication, so they're going to attack him on competence. Clark will ask why he only made it to Captain after 21 years. They'll question his role in the Forrestal fire. They'll claim that he seems to have a knack for losing planes and getting people killed. That sort of thing.

I just think if they try that, they'll be making a tactical error. McCain long ago got the respect of the American people for his military service. Obama's team has to try to deflect that whole issue entirely and claim that this election is not about resumes but about vision and change. That's Obama's strength. He needs to get elected in spite of his resume, not because of it.

Lakai

06-29-2008, 05:28 PM

Seriously, every time Obama's campaign turns this into a debate about resumes, Obama is going to lose. There's absolutely nothing about his resume that says, "this guy is qualified to be president". Has hasn't even fulfilled a full term as a U.S. Senator, and he's spent most of that term campaigning for President. He has no military service at all - not even National Guard or Reserves.

Maybe if they poke enough it will create enough doubt about McCain's resume that this campaign might actually be about who has better ideas for the country.

I doubt it will work out that way, but there is no harm in trying.

That being said, it appears that Obama doesn't have much to do with this attack.

Monty

06-29-2008, 05:32 PM

That's got to be an interesting juxtaposition of roles. Who and what do pilots manage? How much time in their week is left over for managing, after they've done their flying, and handled whatever pre- and post-flight stuff a Navy pilot surely has to do?

Not really. It's part of being a Commissioned Officer.
They manage Enlisted Members and also other Commissioned Officers as they're assigned as Division Officers, Department Heads, etc.
They devote quite a lot of time doing that kind of management. It's not something you can just decide--especially while embarked--"Well, I'm just going to fly today; the division/department can go down the tubes for all I care."
There are limits to how much flying time per day the officer may do. No doubt, the knowledge that he has other duties is part of the reason for the limit.

Lakai

06-29-2008, 05:36 PM

I just think if they try that, they'll be making a tactical error. McCain long ago got the respect of the American people for his military service. Obama's team has to try to deflect that whole issue entirely and claim that this election is not about resumes but about vision and change. That's Obama's strength. He needs to get elected in spite of his resume, not because of it.

Right, but I just don't think Obama should leave the "McCain=War Hero=Presidential Material" logic lying around. To make this election about issues he has to make the point that McCain's resume is irrelevant to the job. Isn't that what Clark is trying to say here?

Argent Towers

06-29-2008, 05:43 PM

Clark's right - McCain's valor and endurance while a prisoner in Hanoi all those years ago doesn't make him more fit to be President than he would otherwise be.

Maybe I'm just an ignorant guy, but I happen to think that the strength of character that it would take to withstand years of torture as a POW under the most hellish conditions on earth would qualify a guy to be the leader of our country much more than a career pushing pencils.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 05:50 PM

PaulParkhead

06-29-2008, 05:51 PM

I don't get this. How, exactly, does military experience qualify one to lead a country?

elucidator

06-29-2008, 05:51 PM

You think Wesley Clark is a rat? Like maybe an angry Clinton supporter who's torpedoing Obama? I think that's unlikely, but I guess it's possible....
Actually, no, Sam. As grateful as I am for your kind assistance, I can express my views pretty well, for the most part. Should I require your help, please be assured I will not hesitate to ask.

But to clear any lingering doubts: I think the McBomb campaign was ready, willing, and eager for any such suggestion, and may even have fired their ammo a bit prematurely. As noted above, they would be tickled half to death if Obama would be foolish enough to dis McCain's partiotism, courage, etc. He didn't and he won't, since he does posses the good sense that God gave a goose.

Two bits says a radio talk tub o' puke like Hugh Hewitt will start in on this, taking the cited article at bald-face value, "surrogate" and all. As for Clark, I hadn't noticed any crippling reticence on his part to make his views known.

tomndebb

06-29-2008, 05:52 PM

Fish

06-29-2008, 05:54 PM

levdrakon

06-29-2008, 05:54 PM

Fish

06-29-2008, 05:56 PM

And snorting coke and smoking pot and who knows what else.
Suddenly the Republican party thinks that snorting coke is important. Who knew?

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 05:57 PM

Wes Clark is a self-aggrandizing egomaniac prick. I wouldn't believe anything that guy says. He was a classmate of my Dad's at West Point and he has never had anything nice to say about Clark, other than that he is overly ambitious and has a huge ego.

Furthermore, why is this even an issue? We're talking about McCain, whom is a US Senator, yes? Tenured senator, even. His military record is admirable, but using the "well, he was only a fighter pilot so how does that qualify him to be President?" argument is nonsense. The answer is it doesn't. But, having military experience is helpful for the CIC resume, as one would presume having been a POW and fought in an ugly war that McCain would understand the plight of the soldier and be less willing to send troops into harms way needlessly.

McCain's experience as a Senator is far more valuable in terms of leadership than being a fighter pilot. Why even bring it up?

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 05:58 PM

You're free to believe that.

But I believe that a person whose career has been spent building community and reaching compromise makes him more fit for political power than one whose big selling point is that he was able to stand upon his principles in the face of hardship.

They're both types of leadership. McCain's camp is trying to make this about "I resisted torture, therefore I am a war hero, therefore I have sufficient executive experience," when really, what kind of executive experience does a political leader really need?
Where is McCain's camp tooting his horn at being a POW? And doesn't being a POW enlighten one as to the nature of war, and possibly render an unwillingness to engage in it needlessly?

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 06:01 PM

gonzomax

06-29-2008, 06:01 PM

http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522 It would be fair to use the Rove method. Calling McCain a traitor and a manchurian candidate. His surrogates were way over but they set guidelines we could use.This is no where near that level. But the Dems do typically play nicer.

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 06:02 PM

And snorting coke and smoking pot and who knows what else.

I'm also tired of this "don't judge what he did in the past!" thing.

If we don't care about your past, then let's elect a 16-year-old.
Bill Clinton smoked pot and he got elected? What's the point? People that change their lifestyles aren't allowed to ever become President?

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 06:02 PM

And snorting coke and smoking pot and who knows what else.

I'm also tired of this "don't judge what he did in the past!" thing.

If we don't care about your past, then let's elect a 16-year-old.

It's not don't judge,..It's be realistic about how relevant it is. Your last sentance sure isn't.

If we leave out everybody who may have experimented with drugs who will be left?
Or, Does experimenting with drugs years ago mean that person can't be a great leader?

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 06:05 PM

Where is McCain's camp tooting his horn at being a POW? And doesn't being a POW enlighten one as to the nature of war, and possibly render an unwillingness to engage in it needlessly?

Have you been listening to him lately? You must be referring to some other former POW.

tomndebb

06-29-2008, 06:07 PM

Have you been listening to him lately? You must be referring to some other former POW.However, in the context of Clark's comments, it would be nice to see a link to a specific declaration by McClain that his POW status has prepared him for the presidency.

levdrakon

06-29-2008, 06:08 PM

It's not don't judge,..It's be realistic about how relevant it is. Your last sentance sure isn't.

If we leave out everybody who may have experimented with drugs who will be left?
Or, Does experimenting with drugs years ago mean that person can't be a great leader?People just like to continually move the goal post. Let's fairly compare both men's backgrounds, and not arbitrarily pick a convenient day/month/year beyond which, nothing matters.

Argent Towers

06-29-2008, 06:16 PM

I'm not sure that being stubborn a long time ago is really a good recommendation for the presidency. We've got a stubborn guy, now.

I think it takes more than stubbornness to withstand torture. And we're talking about serious torture here, for years, torture that left him physically crippled for the rest of his life. That's not stubbornness, that's courage, hope, and conviction. And anyway it's easy for Bush to be stubborn when he's sitting comfortably in the Oval Office with every amenity on the planet at his beck and call - it's quite another to be stubborn when your life is literally on the line.

TWDuke

06-29-2008, 06:20 PM

Do we really want a commander in Chief who has absolutely no experience with the military life and traditions?Yes. It is debatable that decades-old experience has much relevance to how wars are likely to be waged in the future. It is highly debatable that experience as a POW makes someone less likely to put others in harm way. It should not be debatable that military service is not a requirement for political office in this country.

Fish

06-29-2008, 06:34 PM

It should not be debatable that military service is not a requirement for political office in this country.
What disgusts me the most about this is how the Republican party line seems to flip-flop every 4 years on drugs and the military. Me, I didn't care when it was Clinton; I didn't care when it was Bush; I don't care whether it's Obama or McCain. But I'm tired of hearing

Drug use is important! Can't have a president who used drugs, no sir. And military service is important! Can't have a president who is a draft-dodger.

Drug use is irrelevant! It was a long time ago. And military service is irrelevant! So what if I'm running against a Vietnam veteran?

Drug use is important! Can't have a president who used drugs, no sir. And military service is important!

As a nation of intelligent voters we must say STOP. Drug use, military service? If these things are only irrelevant when it's our guy, and relevant when it's the other guy, then they should always be irrelevant. What matters is what the candidate will do in the future.

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 06:40 PM

Military service is a plus, but not an overwhelmingly determining factor.

Illegal drug use will always be a knock in most circles, because, um, it's illegal.

I just hate politics. All this sniping and undermining. it's truly horrible, and in no way helpful, other than to get the next schmuck elected.

I believe military service, especially service that was over 20 years, is quite helpful to a potential candidate for POTUS, but not necessary.

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 06:42 PM

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 07:16 PM

However, in the context of Clark's comments, it would be nice to see a link to a specific declaration by McClain that his POW status has prepared him for the presidency.

from McCain or from McCain supporters? I've seen some on this very board touting his POW status and his military leadership as presidential training. Have republicans been making the comparison and using his impressive military record to indicate he is the better candidate in perilous times? Just the opposite of what they were stressing four years ago.

I agree with Sam that a good strategy would be not trying to denigrate his service in any way, but I think it has to be mentioned.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 07:26 PM

People just like to continually move the goal post. Let's fairly compare both men's backgrounds, and not arbitrarily pick a convenient day/month/year beyond which, nothing matters.

Is it necessary to be such an extremist? I never implied it didn't matter. I'm only suggesting we look at both men's credentials realistically. I'm voting for a president this year not 20 or 40 years ago, so I care more about their more recent records and positions on the issues, as well as their more recent displays of character.

btw, in another thread , although military service is emotionally appealing to the layman {myself included} there is no evidence that it helps anyone be a better president. We just had a thread and looked at that very issue. Since we're facing some serious problems in this country I think that's a fact every voter should consider.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 07:32 PM

I think it takes more than stubbornness to withstand torture. And we're talking about serious torture here, for years, torture that left him physically crippled for the rest of his life. That's not stubbornness, that's courage, hope, and conviction. And anyway it's easy for Bush to be stubborn when he's sitting comfortably in the Oval Office with every amenity on the planet at his beck and call - it's quite another to be stubborn when your life is literally on the line.

I agree with this as well. The question is whether that same man, with that same character, is running for president now. By my recent observations, he is not the same person. I don't know why, and I don't need to know in order for it to influence my vote. I can honor and respect his service to this country and still think he's not the best man for POTUS.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 07:38 PM

That website is horrible. Just bad. Beyond bad. Unimaginable.

Do you think it's true or false? I remember seeing a clip of McCain admonishing Bush for those kind of tactics telling him he ought to be ashamed of himself for having any part in it.

BrainGlutton

06-29-2008, 07:40 PM

That website is horrible. Just bad. Beyond bad. Unimaginable.

What does it say that isn't true?

BrainGlutton

06-29-2008, 07:42 PM

His leadership role did come as a formal official appointment, but rather in his role in the POW camp.

:confused: Did you leave a word or two out of that sentence?

BrainGlutton

06-29-2008, 07:46 PM

levdrakon

06-29-2008, 08:02 PM

Is it necessary to be such an extremist? I never implied it didn't matter. I'm only suggesting we look at both men's credentials realistically. I'm voting for a president this year not 20 or 40 years ago, so I care more about their more recent records and positions on the issues, as well as their more recent displays of character.You are moving the bar then, and you're moving it in an extreme way. Now it's "this year," we should judge them by.

Like I said before, why don't we just elect a smart, photogenic 16-year-old? We could have a democratically elected Queen Amidala.

elucidator

06-29-2008, 08:03 PM

America has a very deep cultural military thing. For generations, politicians craved to have a military background, combat service, if possible. Its reminiscent of French politicians exaggerating or fabricating their connections to the Resistance of WWII. Note for instance the questions about GW's drug use and his sketchy career protecting the skies of Texas from the Viet Cong air force.

Questions about the dedication and sincerity of his military committment brought a ferocious response, they fought that one tooth and nail, screaming their lungs out! Suggestions about drug use? Meh. Largely shrugged off, at least in comparison to accusations of a gold-bricking enlistment. This goes way back with us, its so ingrained we hardly notice it anymore. Go see John Wayne's The Green Berets if you need a refresher on the kind of blatant propaganda we used to swallow whole.

We exaggerate the importance of military experience the same way we exaggerate the importance of leaders, and leadership. If there is one glaring exception, that would be Dwight Eisenhower, who held together an alliance that included Charles DeGaulle, Churchill and Stalin. Its a wonder he could have planned a luncheon, much less an amphibious invasion. Qualifications for the job extraordinary, performance adequate.

The McCain people are stroking the warrior nerve in our collective psyche, as has been done a thousand times before, and will continue so long as we fall for it. A pity we couldn't run Kurt Vonnegut or Joseph Heller, they had lots of experience, lessons to teach us. But perhaps they lacked leadership skills.

levdrakon

06-29-2008, 08:17 PM

BrainGlutton

06-29-2008, 08:26 PM

Military experience is certainly better than can't-come-up-with-better experience, though. It's unfair to dismiss it as "doesn't count!"

McCain's experience shows he is a man of courage -- but not the sort of courage required of a POTUS, who is never expected or even allowed to risk his own life.

RTFirefly

06-29-2008, 08:31 PM

Maybe I'm just an ignorant guy, but I happen to think that the strength of character that it would take to withstand years of torture as a POW under the most hellish conditions on earth would qualify a guy to be the leader of our country much more than a career pushing pencils.I'd be more inclined to agree with you if there was a clear line of making the right choice under difficult conditions running through McCain's life from then to now.

But there isn't.

He came back from Hanoi, supposedly loaded with character from having withstood the worst that his North Vietnamese jailers could throw at him - and returned to a wife who'd had a pretty damned difficult time of it herself. She'd survived a terrible car crash, leaving her with two smashed legs, a broken pelvis, broken arm, and ruptured spleen. She underwent 23 operations, lost 4 inches in the reconstruction of her legs, and gained weight.

Fortunately, John McCain had the character and fortitude to cheat on her with multiple women, eventually landing a beer heiress nearly 20 years younger than himself, whose family (once he divorced his first wife and married the heiress) would finance his entree into politics.

A few years later, he'd have the integrity and character to be one of the Keating Five.

More recently, he'd have the integrity and character to reverse himself on practically everything he'd ever disagreed with George W. Bush on, and to kiss the asses of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and the late Jerry Falwell, who he'd once called an 'agent[] of intolerance.'

And there's the four dozen or so flip-flops (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html) that he's had the character to do in this campaign.

The latest - and this is really good - is:

Remember how, last year, he sponsored a pretty reasonable immigration bill?

Then, during the primaries, he said if that bill came to a vote at that time, he'd have to vote against it.

Yesterday, speaking to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, he had the integrity to change back to his original position (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16038.html).

No doubt his ability to withstand political pressure is directly attributable to his years of being tested in Hanoi.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 08:50 PM

You are moving the bar then, and you're moving it in an extreme way. Now it's "this year," we should judge them by.

Like I said before, why don't we just elect a smart, photogenic 16-year-old? We could have a democratically elected Queen Amidala.

This doesn't even resemble what I've said. I said I'm voting for a president this year. That's a fact. I did not say we only consider their actions and character this year. I'm saying more recent displays of attitudes and character should have more relevance than things that happened several decades ago. 10 to 20 years ago is more recent than 40 years ago wouldn't you say? Especially if they seem to indicate a change in the person running for office. Does that seem sensible to you? I didn't care if GWB smoked pot 20 years ago or had some alcohol issues 20 years ago. It didn't seem that relevant. Likewise I don't care if Obama experimented with drugs 20 years ago. I've already said I honor and respect McCain's service but in considering who to vote for I want to look at more recent indications of who the person is and what they stand for. I want to see if their words and actions show any consistency.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 08:58 PM

Well, Clinton got elected twice as a "pot smoking draft dodger" so we can't honestly say we Americans worship at the military altar. We elected Bush twice and he went AWOL.

Military experience is certainly better than can't-come-up-with-better experience, though. It's unfair to dismiss it as "doesn't count!"

I haven't seen anybody say it doesn't count at all. It's a question of how much it actually relates to the situation at hand. The fact that he displayed courage and noble character then doesn't automatically translate into that same character decades later.

Does the fact that Obama chose public service over a lucrative career count as noble character?

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 09:00 PM

What does it say that isn't true?
What does it say that is true, and is verifiable by you or me?

And even if McCain has a temper, so what? Don't you? Don't I?

We can elect the "unelectable" dope smokers and coke snorting drunks, but not someone that gets pissed off at political shenanigans, real or perceived, and that becomes public knowledge. Whoopty-doo.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 09:00 PM

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if there was a clear line of making the right choice under difficult conditions running through McCain's life from then to now.

But there isn't.

He came back from Hanoi, supposedly loaded with character from having withstood the worst that his North Vietnamese jailers could throw at him - and returned to a wife who'd had a pretty damned difficult time of it herself. She'd survived a terrible car crash, leaving her with two smashed legs, a broken pelvis, broken arm, and ruptured spleen. She underwent 23 operations, lost 4 inches in the reconstruction of her legs, and gained weight.

Fortunately, John McCain had the character and fortitude to cheat on her with multiple women, eventually landing a beer heiress nearly 20 years younger than himself, whose family (once he divorced his first wife and married the heiress) would finance his entree into politics.

A few years later, he'd have the integrity and character to be one of the Keating Five.

More recently, he'd have the integrity and character to reverse himself on practically everything he'd ever disagreed with George W. Bush on, and to kiss the asses of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and the late Jerry Falwell, who he'd once called an 'agent[] of intolerance.'

And there's the four dozen or so flip-flops (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html) that he's had the character to do in this campaign.

The latest - and this is really good - is:

Remember how, last year, he sponsored a pretty reasonable immigration bill?

Then, during the primaries, he said if that bill came to a vote at that time, he'd have to vote against it.

Yesterday, speaking to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, he had the integrity to change back to his original position (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16038.html).

No doubt his ability to withstand political pressure is directly attributable to his years of being tested in Hanoi.

Stop mincing words. If you have something to say just spit it out.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 09:01 PM

What does it say that is true, and is verifiable by you or me?

And even if McCain has a temper, so what? Don't you? Don't I?

We can elect the "unelectable" dope smokers and coke snorting drunks, but not someone that gets pissed off at political shenanigans, real or perceived, and that becomes public knowledge. Whoopty-doo.

Wow , did you really miss the point that badly?

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 09:04 PM

Cite?

If it's anything to do with what's recounted here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Kosovo_War) Shelton is full of shit.
yeah, except for this part:

Secretary of Defense William Cohen felt that Clark had powerful allies at the White House such as President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that were allowing him to circumvent The Pentagon in promoting his strategic ideas, while Clark felt he was not being included enough in discussions with the National Command Authority, leading Clark to describe himself as "just a NATO officer who also reported to the United States".[53] This command conflict came to a ceremonial head when Clark was not initially invited to a summit in Washington, D.C. to commemorate NATO's 50th anniversary, despite being its supreme military commander. Clark eventually secured an invitation to the summit, but was told by Cohen to say nothing about ground troops, and Clark agreed.[54]

The flag lowered at the United States Consulate General in Hong Kong in respect for the victims of the embassy bombing[55]Clark returned to SHAPE following the summit and briefed the press on the continued bombing operations. A reporter from the Los Angeles Times asked a question about the effect of bombings on Serbian forces, and Clark noted that merely counting the number of opposing troops did not show Milošević's true losses because he was bringing in reinforcements. Many American news organizations capitalized on the remark in a way Clark said "distorted the comment" with headlines such as "NATO Chief Admits Bombs Fail to Stem Serb Operations" in The New York Times. Clark later defended his remarks, saying this was a "complete misunderstanding of my statement and of the facts," and President Clinton agreed Clark's remarks had been misconstrued. Regardless, Clark received a call the following evening from General Hugh Shelton who said he had been told by Secretary Cohen to deliver a piece of guidance verbatim. "Get your fucking face off the TV. No more briefings, period. That's it."[56][57]

These things happen for a reason. And Clark, being a Democrat under a Democratic President, can't hide behind the current meme of "I tried to tell Rumsfeld no and he fired me!"

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-29-2008, 09:05 PM

Wow , did you really miss the point that badly?
Apparently. Fight my ignorance, please.

Jurph

06-29-2008, 09:11 PM

Questioning or attacking McCain's military record is the worst possible thing the Obama campaign can do, short of a scandal being uncovered. We know McCain was an effective military leader...

Really?
McCain decided to leave the Navy. He was unlikely to ever make full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command. In early 1981, he was told he would be made rear admiral; he declined the prospect, as he already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there."

One command of a flying squadron is definitely executive experience, but I'd say it's on par with being mayor of a large town or a very small city. If he had been a base commander or a ship commander, I'd be more convinced, but as it is, I reject the premise of the OP that "McCain was an effective military leader." Turning down a billet as an O-7 makes me a little suspicious of his executive temperament.

On the flip-side, Clark went over his bosses' heads several times while in uniform -- I no longer accept his judgment on military matters.

levdrakon

06-29-2008, 09:21 PM

McCain's experience shows he is a man of courage -- but not the sort of courage required of a POTUS, who is never expected or even allowed to risk his own life.There was a thread recently about McCain inviting Obama to go to Iraq, and Obama inviting McCain to go the "inner city." I guess that whole thread was meaningless. As you say, a POTUS "is never expected or even allowed to risk his own life."

I'm curious now though, what form of courage has either man evinced that fits the sort of courage we expect from POTUS? At least Hillary plopped out, and raised a baby. Still the wrong form of courage?

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 09:33 PM

Apparently. Fight my ignorance, please.

IMO the point is that the republican party had gotten so far off track that it tolerated and rewarded the kind of horrible dishonest tactics Bush/Cheney/Rove used in the 2000 election to defeat McCain. They allowed a respected member of their own party to be smeared and shit on in a way that should be completely unacceptable.

I know politics is a hard game but at some point certain tactics should be rejected because those very tactics reveal what we need to know about the person's character. Sadly McCain, for the sake of the party tolerated and forgave Bush and proceeded to support him, and in recent months has begun to reverse almost every disagreement he had with this admin.

Mr. Moto

06-29-2008, 09:36 PM

One command of a flying squadron is definitely executive experience, but I'd say it's on par with being mayor of a large town or a very small city. If he had been a base commander or a ship commander, I'd be more convinced, but as it is, I reject the premise of the OP that "McCain was an effective military leader." Turning down a billet as an O-7 makes me a little suspicious of his executive temperament.

On the flip-side, Clark went over his bosses' heads several times while in uniform -- I no longer accept his judgment on military matters.

I agree with you about Clark.

I haven't made McCain's command experience to be more than it was - it is part of his record, only a part, and something that ought to be considered. But a couple of other things have to be mentioned - McCain was off of the promotion lists the entire time he was a prisoner. While his colleagues moved forward with their careers, he sat in a cell.

And the physical trauma he was left with from his experience almost cost him his flight status when he returned - he had to fight to get it back, both legally and through excruciating rehab. It was enough to get him a command tour. But he had those poor annual physicals - again from the trauma of those years in Hanoi. In the end there wasn't any further he could go - the job he had after that was a liaison position and the O-7 job similarly was not a command post.

Criticizing McCain for not becoming an admiral isn't much on the mark - there ain't many of them around and lots of people with very honorable service never get close to that.

Sam Stone

06-29-2008, 09:39 PM

What disgusts me the most about this is how the Republican party line seems to flip-flop every 4 years on drugs and the military. Me, I didn't care when it was Clinton; I didn't care when it was Bush; I don't care whether it's Obama or McCain. But I'm tired of hearing

Drug use is important! Can't have a president who used drugs, no sir. And military service is important! Can't have a president who is a draft-dodger.

Drug use is irrelevant! It was a long time ago. And military service is irrelevant! So what if I'm running against a Vietnam veteran?

Drug use is important! Can't have a president who used drugs, no sir. And military service is important!

As a nation of intelligent voters we must say STOP. Drug use, military service? If these things are only irrelevant when it's our guy, and relevant when it's the other guy, then they should always be irrelevant. What matters is what the candidate will do in the future.

Oh, come on. Both sides play this game. Remember the unattributed story that Bush used Coke? That would have been a huge deal had it been corroborated. And people went bananas trying to show that he wasn't a good Guardsman. And when it was John Kerry who had the military background and the medals, that was sure repeated over and over again as a qualification for Commander-in-Chief, wasn't it? Remember "John Kerry, reporting for duty!" at the Democratic convention? And we learned over and over just how many medals he had, and how heroic he was, and how that made him battle tested and ready to command the nation's military.

The fact is, both sides probe the other for weakness, and try to play on that and play up their own strengths. And partisans on both sides pick up the talking points and run amok. That's how campaigns are waged.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Obama has managed to make his past a non-issue. He's obviously admitted to transgressions much more severe than any other presidential candidate ever has - he's admitted to snorting coke, to smoking pot, to perhaps doing other drugs, and to being a general 'hell raiser', which probably means there are other crimes and misdemeanors in his past.

I think it was smart of hiim to admit this all right out of the gate and defuse it, and that's no doubt why he's getting a pass. There's a lesson in there for other candidates - go on the offense with the stuff in your closet, and control the narrative. If Obama had tried to hide his past, and it was discovered by Republicans, it would probably be a big damned deal now.

But anyway, both sides play the game. If the next election has a Democrat like Clark going up against a Repubican with no military service, you can damned well bet that the Democrats will try to make that an issue.

cosmosdan

06-29-2008, 10:08 PM

Oh, come on. Both sides play this game. Remember the unattributed story that Bush used Coke? That would have been a huge deal had it been corroborated. And people went bananas trying to show that he wasn't a good Guardsman. And when it was John Kerry who had the military background and the medals, that was sure repeated over and over again as a qualification for Commander-in-Chief, wasn't it? Remember "John Kerry, reporting for duty!" at the Democratic convention? And we learned over and over just how many medals he had, and how heroic he was, and how that made him battle tested and ready to command the nation's military.

I think it was a big mistake for Kerry to make such a big deal about his service. Bring it up yes, but the issues of the day should remain central.

The fact is, both sides probe the other for weakness, and try to play on that and play up their own strengths. And partisans on both sides pick up the talking points and run amok. That's how campaigns are waged.
Sure. I think we have tolerated too much bullshit from both parties. It's time we told the campaigns and the pundits to STFU about the personal non issues and playing on our emotions instead of trying to stay relevant.

But anyway, both sides play the game. If the next election has a Democrat like Clark going up against a Repubican with no military service, you can damned well bet that the Democrats will try to make that an issue.

I sure hope not. As part of an overall picture sure, but the fact is military service doesn't seem to make someone a better and/or more effective public servant.

chacoguy

06-29-2008, 11:07 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

06-29-2008, 11:40 PM

ZebraShaSha

06-30-2008, 12:27 AM

This is a man that is willing to put the country before his own interests. How far back does one need to look to find a president that did this? Kennedy?

Which does not mean he would make a good president. A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Liberal

06-30-2008, 12:47 AM

However, in the context of Clark's comments, it would be nice to see a link to a specific declaration by McClain that his POW status has prepared him for the presidency.The code phrase is "my service in Vietnam". Check his speech Saturday, for example, to the Latino elected officials.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 12:58 AM

Oh, Latinos! Which position did he take this time?

Fish

06-30-2008, 01:14 AM

Oh, come on. Both sides play this game.
Absolutely, they do. I'm not going to give the Democrats a pass on this, any more than the Republicans.

I don't care whether somebody has had military service, because I know that military service alone is not strong indicator of performance. Our best presidents, and our worst, have been in the military.

I'm saying that we, as voters, should stop giving a rat's ass when they trot out these stupid meaningless indicators.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 04:39 AM

Oh, Latinos! Which position did he take this time?Since he was talking to them, he's for immigration reform again.

Liberal

06-30-2008, 06:43 AM

There are, at least two, defining moments in John McCain's military career. The first was when he was on the USS Forrestal. A fire broke out around his plane, he could have ejected to save himself, but chose otherwise to avoid spreading the fire. He crawled out on the fuel probe and jumped clear. He was running back towards the fire when the first of several large bombs went off and blew him into uncontentiousness.Would that he had remained uncontentious.

The second moment was when he was captured. The Vietnamese knew that his father was in charge of all the naval operations in, and around Vietnam at the time. They offered him an early release, he declined, they insisted. He, literally, spat in their face. They hung him from the ceiling until his arms came out of their sockets.That's not accurate, even according to his own account as told in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report. He thought it over for several days, weighing both the political and military consequences. The two factors that convinced him to stay were that (1) he didn't want to be used as a propaganda tool and (2) the military Code of Conduct prohibited it.

Suddenly "The Cat" said to me, "Do you want to go home?"

I was astonished, and I tell you frankly that I said that I would have to think about it. I went back to my room, and I thought about it for a long time. At this time I did not have communication with the camp senior ranking officer, so I could get no advice. I was worried whether I could stay alive or not, because I was in rather bad condition. I had been hit with a severe case of dysentery, which kept on for about a year and a half. I was losing weight again.

But I knew that the Code of Conduct says, "You will not accept parole or amnesty," and that "you will not accept special favors." For somebody to go home earlier is a special favor. There's no other way you can cut it.

I went back to him three nights later. He asked again, "Do you want to go home?" I told him "No." He wanted to know why, and I told him the reason. I said that Alvarez [first American captured] should go first, then enlisted men and that kind of stuff.

"The Cat" told me that President Lyndon Johnson had ordered me home. He handed me a letter from my wife, in which she had said, "I wished that you had been one of those three who got to come home." Of course, she had no way to understand the ramifications of this. "The Cat" said that the doctors had told him that I could not live unless I got medical treatment in the United States.

We went through this routine and still I told him "No." Three nights later we went through it all over again. On the morning of the Fourth of July, 1968, which happened to be the same day that my father took over as commander in chief of U. S. Forces in the Pacific, I was led into another quiz room.

"The Rabbit" and "The Cat" were sitting there. I walked in and sat down, and "The Rabbit" said, "Our senior wants to know your final answer."

"My final answer is the same. It's 'No.' "

"That is your final answer?"

"That is my final answer."

John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account, U.S.News & World ReportNo spitting. No hanging arm sockets. Just a methodical thinking process.

BobLibDem

06-30-2008, 07:11 AM

And his comment that :“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” is definitely a cheap shot, since McCain has done a whole hell of a lot more in his life than that.

It is McCain who makes his POW history the focal point of his campaign commercials. If he does that, then I think it's fair game to question the relevance of that experience.

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-30-2008, 07:33 AM

Ooohh...McCain once had enough sense to jump off of a burning object. How incredible.

The title for this thread should be changed. It's inaccurate on two counts. Wesley Clark is not part of "the Obama campaign," and he did not "attack McCain's military service."

I am amused, however, by the self-delusion and the oblivious hypocrisy of some of the righties in this thread. We've got people swiftboating Wesley Clark in a thread falsely accusing the Obama campaign of the doing the same to McCain.

As always, conservatives believe that military service is only honorable for Republicans, which means they don't really respect it at all. They just think it provides a handy hammer to bash liberals with.
That is such unmitigated nonsense. ALL military service is honorable, except for those whom are dishonorably discharged or otherwise conduct themselves in a manner unbecoming.
For instance, I never begrudged John Kerry's politicization of his military service, but I do think that he got Purple Hearts for what amounted to scratches which imo, cheapens them somewhat. Then to protest and toss those medals over the Pentagon fence, only to trot those medals out later in his life when it was politically convenient was just...smarmy to me.

DSeid

06-30-2008, 07:43 AM

The McCain camp reaction to Wes Clark's statement is a feint, a head fake.

It is designed to provoke the Obama camp into saying something to the effect of "we can't be held accountable for everything our supporters say about our opponent." Which the McCain camp will trot out every time a Swiftboat attack comes out against Obama. Obama's alternative is to defend the gist of the statement, which may be accurate on its merits - honorable service is not executive experience - but still a foolish point for Team Obama to make prominent.

Orbifold

06-30-2008, 07:46 AM

And his comment that :“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” is definitely a cheap shot,

No, it's not, and your characterization of General Clark's comments does him a disservice.

Let's add some context, shall we? That article in the OP does a wonderful job of selective quoting. Here's the quote from the link in the OP:

“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. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Now here's a more complete quote (http://securingamerica.com/node/2993):

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. 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 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. 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-'

Bob Schieffer: Well-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-

Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

General Clark did not bring up the subject of getting shot down out of the blue, and he certainly did not imply that it was the only thing John McCain ever did in his life. The interviewer went there first, implying that being shot down was something that qualified McCain over Obama, and Clark refuted him. Then the article in the OP gutted the quote, completely eliding the interviewer's questions, and made it seem like a single continuous statement of General Clark's. That's your cheap shot.

Little Nemo

06-30-2008, 07:56 AM

"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. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron.”

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” After what the Republicans did to Al Gore and especially John Kerry, I can't believe they have the balls to claim the above statement is an attack on John McCain's military attack. If John McCain were a Democrat, conservatives would be claiming his story about being captured was a lie and that he had intentionally defected to North Vietnam so he could help the the Vietcong torture American POWs.

BrainGlutton

06-30-2008, 08:02 AM

And when it was John Kerry who had the military background and the medals, that was sure repeated over and over again as a qualification for Commander-in-Chief, wasn't it? Remember "John Kerry, reporting for duty!" at the Democratic convention? And we learned over and over just how many medals he had, and how heroic he was, and how that made him battle tested and ready to command the nation's military.

[shrug] I thought the choice of a war hero made a certain sense strategically, but I don't recall touting Kerry's service record or physical courage as an actually qualification for the office. The moral courage he showed in the Winter Soldier Hearings, that was a qualification for the office!

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 08:05 AM

Let's add some context, shall we? That article in the OP does a wonderful job of selective quoting. Here's the quote from the link in the OP:

Now here's a more complete quote (http://securingamerica.com/node/2993):
The quote you provided had a lot more context for Clark's 'executive responsibility' remark, which puts a whole different meaning on it than we've been bandying back and forth in this thread.

cosmosdan

06-30-2008, 08:05 AM

After what the Republicans did to Al Gore and especially John Kerry, I can't believe they have the balls to claim the above statement is an attack on John McCain's military attack. If John McCain were a Democrat, conservatives would be claiming his story about being captured was a lie and that he had intentionally defected to North Vietnam so he could help the the Vietcong torture American POWs.

Which in essence , is what Bush and friends did to McCain in 2000. His own party allowed the war hero to be shit on much more than anything the Dems have done.

Shodan

06-30-2008, 08:22 AM

Fortunately, John McCain had the character and fortitude to cheat on her with multiple women, eventually landing a beer heiress nearly 20 years younger than himself, whose family (once he divorced his first wife and married the heiress) would finance his entree into politics.
So what you are saying is, you could never support a military man who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress, is that right?

Someone who did that (http://www.moveonnow.org/Kerry_biographical/Kerry_1970_1997.htm) is unqualified for the Oval Office due to lack of moral character. Right?

And obviously adultery is a clear indication that a politician is a lying sleazeball and not suited for the White House.

Just so we're clear here.

Regards,
Shodan

Orbifold

06-30-2008, 08:35 AM

The quote you provided had a lot more context for Clark's 'executive responsibility' remark, which puts a whole different meaning on it than we've been bandying back and forth in this thread.

Yeah, funny how that works. The context of Clark's remarks will, no doubt, be completely and utterly ignored by as many people as possible both in this thread and in the media for precisely that reason.

Jophiel

06-30-2008, 08:36 AM

And obviously adultery is a clear indication that a politician is a lying sleazeball and not suited for the White House.I wouldn't say that adultry is grounds for never being president. I would say that I'd question an adulterer's loyalty, conviction, nobility, etc etc. It's commendable that McCain kept his vows to his country when things got rough. It's shameful that he broke his wedding vows when things got rough and found solace in other women without even balling up and divorcing his wife first.

I've never tried to defend any of the Democratic presidents or candidates who've committed adultry as unswervingly loyal and noble folks and I don't buy the same crap about McCain. On one hand, you have a guy who when the things get tough, he sticks it out. On the other hand, when things get tough, he goes off to hide between the thighs of a 26 year old blonde chippy. Don't ask me to only accept the first scenario as the sole indication of his character.

Liberal

06-30-2008, 09:06 AM

After what the Republicans did to Al Gore and especially John Kerry, I can't believe they have the balls to claim the above statement is an attack on John McCain's military attack.Oh, they have balls. They've always had balls. That's why McCain can drop out of public financing in February and then bitch about Obama doing it in June. The difference this time is that their opponent has balls, too. And Republicans just don't know what to do about that. (Neither do a lot of Democrats, frankly, but they seem to be coming around.)

cosmosdan

06-30-2008, 09:24 AM

So what you are saying is, you could never support a military man who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress, is that right?

Someone who did that (http://www.moveonnow.org/Kerry_biographical/Kerry_1970_1997.htm) is unqualified for the Oval Office due to lack of moral character. Right?

And obviously adultery is a clear indication that a politician is a lying sleazeball and not suited for the White House.

Just so we're clear here.

Regards,
Shodan

okay, let's try to be clear. Those statements were about accessing his character in it's entirety and not intended to say what you just said. For those who like to claim that's McCain's status as a war hero tells us all we need to know about his character the answer is clearly "No it doesn't"

I for one, don't think indiscretions in a persons personal life means they can't be an effective leader, especially when they are in the past. I sure don't admire it, but I'm willing to separate it from their abilities as a leader and politician.

Little Nemo

06-30-2008, 09:38 AM

Someone who did that is unqualified for the Oval Office due to lack of moral character. Right?

And obviously adultery is a clear indication that a politician is a lying sleazeball and not suited for the White House.So John McCain is as suited to be President as John Kerry was. I guess that's a standard I can accept with but I'm a little surprised at Shodan endorsing Obama.

John Mace

06-30-2008, 09:38 AM

No, it's not, and your characterization of General Clark's comments does him a disservice.

Let's add some context, shall we? That article in the OP does a wonderful job of selective quoting. Here's the quote from the link in the OP:

Now here's a more complete quote (http://securingamerica.com/node/2993):

General Clark did not bring up the subject of getting shot down out of the blue, and he certainly did not imply that it was the only thing John McCain ever did in his life. The interviewer went there first, implying that being shot down was something that qualified McCain over Obama, and Clark refuted him. Then the article in the OP gutted the quote, completely eliding the interviewer's questions, and made it seem like a single continuous statement of General Clark's. That's your cheap shot.
I don't think the context makes it any less of a cheap shot. In fact, he interrupted the questioner to get it in, so we don't really even know where he was going with that statement.

Liberal

06-30-2008, 09:45 AM

I don't think the context makes it any less of a cheap shot.Hoping against hope, here, that you will answer this question without some irrelevant evasion: why is it a cheap shot to state the fact that military service does not qualify someone to be president? Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols both served in the military. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt served in the military.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 09:49 AM

That is such unmitigated nonsense. ALL military service is honorable, except for those whom are dishonorably discharged or otherwise conduct themselves in a manner unbecoming.
For instance, I never begrudged John Kerry's politicization of his military service, but I do think that he got Purple Hearts for what amounted to scratches which imo, cheapens them somewhat. Then to protest and toss those medals over the Pentagon fence, only to trot those medals out later in his life when it was politically convenient was just...smarmy to me.
I rest my case.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 09:54 AM

I don't think the context makes it any less of a cheap shot. In fact, he interrupted the questioner to get it in, so we don't really even know where he was going with that statement.
You're grasping at straws. Of course we know where he was going with the statement. He had already gone there. He was comparing McCain to Obama and asking what Obama's executive experience was. He said that Obama had never been shot down in a plane. Clark correctly stated that getting shot down in a plane was not a qualification for President. That's neither a cheap shot, nor an attack on McCain's service.

Liberal

06-30-2008, 10:05 AM

McCain is a hypocrite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related) — and an asshole (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CazKanlYDg&feature=related) — his "service in Vietnam" notwithstanding.

John Mace

06-30-2008, 10:09 AM

Hoping against hope, here, that you will answer this question without some irrelevant evasion...
Just so you know, I usually don't respond to people who poison the well like that-- especially with a thinly veiled insult. I will this time, but don't expect me to in the future. I really wish it were possible to discuss politics around here with getting personal in the process.

why is it a cheap shot to state the fact that military service does not qualify someone to be president?
Who said it was a qualification? Scheiffer certainly didn't. (Well, maybe be was going to say that, but we'll never know since Clark was so eager to get that out that he didn't even let Scheiffer finish his sentence.) It's one part of his resume. A very important part, but of course it's not a qualification. Clark just tried to dismiss with a strawman argument. That qualifies as a cheap shot in my book. The only qualification is that you are a natural born citizen at least 35 years old.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols both served in the military.
Well, if they tried to run for president we could decide if that was important. One of them, for better or worse, is dead and we shall never know.

Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt served in the military.
True.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 10:17 AM

Who said it was a qualification? Scheiffer certainly didn't. (Well, maybe be was going to say that, but we'll never know since Clark was so eager to get that out that he didn't even let Scheiffer finish his sentence.
This is all a crock. Schieffer stated that Obama had none of the experience that Clark was talking about , "...nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down." That is a completed thought. There is no other clarifying context coming down the pike. There was no reason to mention that Obama has never been shot down in a plane in the context of a discussion about qulaifications for President than to try to imply that it's a qualification for President If he wasn't trying to cite it as a qualification, there was no reason to bring it up. It was not a cheap shot for Clark to call bullshit on that. Just admit it. There's nothing here.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 10:18 AM

...Then to protest and toss those medals over the Pentagon fence, only to trot those medals out later in his life when it was politically convenient was just...smarmy to me.
Let me offer some information brought about by the simple expedient of being born before you and not dying. It worked. It was political theater, yes, it was meant to shock. It was meant to rock the public's notion that our heroes were all of one mind, and that mind was patriotic and supportive of the war, and shared their contempt for Dirty Fucking Hippies.

When Viet Nam vets started showing up for anti-war demonstrations, it was a sea-change. When you are marching with a guy wearing his campaign hat and has his sleeve pinned up over his missing arm with his Purple Heart, you didn't hear any screams of "Coward!" from the sidelines, you saw stunned disbelief and the horror of dearly-held illusions shattered. It worked.

If you were he, and believed as he believed, and believed it sincerely....what would you have done? What impolite, rude, nay, even "smarmy" things might you be willing to do to bring a senseless slaughter to an end?

42fish

06-30-2008, 10:20 AM

Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt served in the military.

Actually, Lincoln served with the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk War.

John Mace

06-30-2008, 10:27 AM

This is all a crock. Schieffer stated that Obama had none of the experience that Clark was talking about , "...nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down." That is a completed thought. There is no other clarifying context coming down the pike. There was no reason to mention that Obama has never been shot down in a plane in the context of a discussion about qulaifications for President than to try to imply that it's a qualification for President If he wasn't trying to cite it as a qualification, there was no reason to bring it up. It was not a cheap shot for Clark to call bullshit on that. Just admit it. There's nothing here.
Well, I can agree that it's next to nothing. Just because I think it's a cheap shot doesn't mean I think it's important. There are going to be hundreds of cheap shots taken by both sides in this campaign. They really don't mean much to me one or the other. If you want to feel it's not a cheap shot, that's fine with me. It's generally in the eye of the beholder anyway. I gave may reasons, and if you don't agree, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 10:31 AM

So what you are saying is, you could never support a military man who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress, is that right? No, as a matter of fact, that wasn't what I was saying at all.

This has been another installment in the ongoing series of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 10:33 AM

Of course, when he starts in bloviating about how "sacred" marriage is, and how it must be defended, being sacred, and all, well.....

Liberal

06-30-2008, 10:36 AM

Just so you know, I usually don't respond to people who poison the well like that-- especially with a thinly veiled insult. I will this time, but don't expect me to in the future. I really wish it were possible to discuss politics around here with getting personal in the process.You alone will choose whether to respond and when. Don't pin your decisions on me.

Who said it was a qualification? Scheiffer certainly didn't. (Well, maybe be was going to say that, but we'll never know since Clark was so eager to get that out that he didn't even let Scheiffer finish his sentence.)Schieffer (i before e) was the first to interrupt. Clark merely tried to finish his point. Schieffer, in fact, interrupted multiple times to make his editorial points.

It's one part of his resume. A very important part, but of course it's not a qualification. Clark just tried to dismiss with a strawman argument. That qualifies as a cheap shot in my book. The only qualification is that you are a natural born citizen at least 35 years old.There's no reason it's any more important to be a POW than it is to rebuild a slum. If anything, one would expect the mental and emotional damage from McCain's alleged torture to be a detriment. It could be one reason he is so hot-headed and confused about almost everything to do with the war in Iraq.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 10:40 AM

Actually, Lincoln served with the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk War.
An enlistment that lasted about three weeks and never saw combat. I wouldn't really call that military experience.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 10:41 AM

And he didn't either.

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 10:51 AM

There's no reason it's any more important to be a POW than it is to rebuild a slum. If anything, one would expect the mental and emotional damage from McCain's alleged torture to be a detriment. It could be one reason he is so hot-headed and confused about almost everything to do with the war in Iraq.

Listen, I've been pretty consistent in saying on these boards that a person's status as a veteran essentially has very little to do with his success in either winning office or governing once he is there.

But that's a far cry from what you are saying, which is that McCain's military experience is totally meaningless except to the degree that it is totally disqualifying. I don't think that is an argument that will gain a lot of traction with the voting public.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 10:53 AM

If John McCain's five years in the Hanoi Hilton do in fact make one more qualified for being President, then I can think of someone who's far more qualified than he.

Remember a couple of decades ago, a young woman was freed after seven years of captivity? She'd been picked up while hitchhiking, and the guy who gave her a lift abducted her and turned her into his personal sex slave for seven years, as well as inflicting all sorts of other tortures on her.

Maybe she should be President. Or maybe we should acknowledge that, regardless of the debt we owe to the heroism of McCain and others similarly situated, it doesn't make them significantly more qualified for high office than anyone else is.

ETA: This was not in any way a reply to Mr. Moto's post.

gonzomax

06-30-2008, 10:59 AM

What does it say that isn't true?
I agree .That is a crappy defense against the idea that the Repubs savaged McCains military record far beyond what the Dems will do. It would be fair to use that as a guideline.
Besides military men have been crappy presidents. Grant and Eisenhower let the party a free reign for corruption. The military experience obviously did not translate to President very well.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 11:01 AM

Eisenhower let the party a free reign for corruption.???

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 11:01 AM

Besides military men have been crappy presidents. Grant and Eisenhower let the party a free reign for corruption. The military experience obviously did not translate to President very well.

Actually I think Eisenhower was quite a good president. In any case I should demand a cite for your allegations of corruption.

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 11:03 AM

???

I owe you a Coke.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 11:07 AM

Actually I think Eisenhower was quite a good president.
He at least knew how to tax the hell out of the rich. I'll say that for him.

Merijeek

06-30-2008, 11:16 AM

Lightnin'

06-30-2008, 11:18 AM

Actually, I believe that McCain's military experience is a good reason he shouldn't be President. When all you've got is a hammer, all the world's a nail.

I'd much rather have a President whose first response to any issue isn't "send in the troops."

Shayna

06-30-2008, 11:23 AM

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 11:25 AM

They have ejection seats that will actually work from a standing plane and not kill the pilot?

-Joe

Sure. We were plane guard one night for the USS John C. Stennis (meaning that as a cruiser, we were some 1500 yards behind her) when a pilot on deck ejected and landed in the water. We had to reverse our screws and do a full stop quickly to avoid running him over, while the boat crew lowered the boat down.

There was a slight snafu or two, but within a few minutes the pilot was recovered and returned to the carrier, slightly the worse for wear.

I don't think the seats in the 1960s were much different, but the problem would have been that McCain would have landed in the water while the entire ship was engaged in fighting a major fire. Getting him would have been an additional problem to deal with.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 11:32 AM

There's no guarantee he would have landed in the water, and even if he had, there was still significant chance of injury. The much safer thing to do what what he did, which was to make the easy, two foot hop back down to the flight deck. Ejecting would have been stupid.

BrainGlutton

06-30-2008, 11:38 AM

yeah, except for this part:

Secretary of Defense William Cohen felt that Clark had powerful allies at the White House such as President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that were allowing him to circumvent The Pentagon in promoting his strategic ideas, while Clark felt he was not being included enough in discussions with the National Command Authority, leading Clark to describe himself as "just a NATO officer who also reported to the United States".[53] This command conflict came to a ceremonial head when Clark was not initially invited to a summit in Washington, D.C. to commemorate NATO's 50th anniversary, despite being its supreme military commander. Clark eventually secured an invitation to the summit, but was told by Cohen to say nothing about ground troops, and Clark agreed.[54]

The flag lowered at the United States Consulate General in Hong Kong in respect for the victims of the embassy bombing[55]Clark returned to SHAPE following the summit and briefed the press on the continued bombing operations. A reporter from the Los Angeles Times asked a question about the effect of bombings on Serbian forces, and Clark noted that merely counting the number of opposing troops did not show Milošević's true losses because he was bringing in reinforcements. Many American news organizations capitalized on the remark in a way Clark said "distorted the comment" with headlines such as "NATO Chief Admits Bombs Fail to Stem Serb Operations" in The New York Times. Clark later defended his remarks, saying this was a "complete misunderstanding of my statement and of the facts," and President Clinton agreed Clark's remarks had been misconstrued. Regardless, Clark received a call the following evening from General Hugh Shelton who said he had been told by Secretary Cohen to deliver a piece of guidance verbatim. "Get your fucking face off the TV. No more briefings, period. That's it."[56][57]

These things happen for a reason. And Clark, being a Democrat under a Democratic President, can't hide behind the current meme of "I tried to tell Rumsfeld no and he fired me!"

So? You're simply bolding two instances where Clark was in the right. (It was a NATO operation, and he but told the truth to the press.) How does either of them reflect badly on Clark's "integrity and character," as Shelton said?

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-30-2008, 11:38 AM

Let me offer some information brought about by the simple expedient of being born before you and not dying. It worked. It was political theater, yes, it was meant to shock. It was meant to rock the public's notion that our heroes were all of one mind, and that mind was patriotic and supportive of the war, and shared their contempt for Dirty Fucking Hippies.

When Viet Nam vets started showing up for anti-war demonstrations, it was a sea-change. When you are marching with a guy wearing his campaign hat and has his sleeve pinned up over his missing arm with his Purple Heart, you didn't hear any screams of "Coward!" from the sidelines, you saw stunned disbelief and the horror of dearly-held illusions shattered. It worked.

If you were he, and believed as he believed, and believed it sincerely....what would you have done? What impolite, rude, nay, even "smarmy" things might you be willing to do to bring a senseless slaughter to an end?
But that's just it, to me. The "smarminess" I alluded to was a general sense of uneasiness about Kerry's convictions regarding his military service. On the one hand he was ashamed of it, so much so that he threw medals that honor war wounded over a fence during a protest, but on the other hand when it became time to run for president, those medals became politically expedient as a means of certifying his patriotism, even though he had disowned them earlier in life.

I'm not saying that Kerry wasn't qualified for office, or that he isn't allowed to change his mind about anything he wants, but it certainly didn't help to defuse the GWB campaign from painting him as a flip-flopper, even though Kerry's military service was of greater merit than GWB's minimal participation in the Armed Forces.

This is exactly why I think Clark is off base about McCain. At the very least, comments like that are not helpful to Obama.

Shodan

06-30-2008, 11:41 AM

No, as a matter of fact, that wasn't what I was saying at all.You're right, of course - you were saying that you could never support a Republican who etc.
So John McCain is as suited to be President as John Kerry was.Well, that is what we are trying to get at - is he? Is dumping your first wife a factor to be considered in voting for a Presidential candidate? How about heroism? Military experience in general? Cocaine use? Flip flopping on issues? Which of these are not-OK even if a Democrat did it?Leave it to you to find an extraordinarily biased site, present it as established fact and misrepresent the details, inventing parity that simply doesn't exist.Misrepresenting the details, you claim? What are you saying - that Kerry was not a military man? I didn't think the Swift Boaters' claims had gone as far as denying that Kerry was in the military at all, or that you would believe them if they had. Do you think that Kerry did not dump his first wife? I'm surprised - she even wrote a book about it. Do you believe that depression is not a health problem? I am guessing you will have more than one or two Dopers to dispute that claim. Or have you really never heard of Heinz ketchup, and so don't believe that Ms. Kerry II is a rich heiress?

The parity thing? You probably got a point - spending four months in country, being shot in the ass with a piece of rice and then coming back home to poor-mouth your fellow veterans is not very equivalent to five years in a torture camp and coming back to lead a squadron to its first Meritorious Unit Commendation ever. ;)

Regards,
Shodan

sqweels

06-30-2008, 11:43 AM

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-30-2008, 11:44 AM

So? You're simply bolding two instances where Clark was in the right. (It was a NATO operation, and he but told the truth to the press.) How does either of them reflect badly on Clark's "integrity and character," as Shelton said?
Because (particularly in the first bolded paragraph) it shows that Clark was a chain-of-command-jumper, a practice which is viewed very dimly by the brass a the Pentagon, and in general, throughout the entire Armed Forces.

All I can go by beyond readng about these types of instances is from talking to my Dad, whom also was a career Army general, did 36 years in the USACE, was a West Point classmate of Clark's, knew him pretty well and shared some of his opinions about him with me, which were decidedly shaded by accusations of being egomaniacal and overly ambitious.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 11:53 AM

You're right, of course - you were saying that you could never support a Republican who etc. Could you kindly quote exact language where I say what sort of candidate I "could never support"?

Because I'm really, really curious as to where I said the things you describe here. I wasn't even discussing that subject.

Shayna

06-30-2008, 11:55 AM

Misrepresenting the details, you claim? What are you saying - that Kerry was not a military man? I didn't think the Swift Boaters' claims had gone as far as denying that Kerry was in the military at all, or that you would believe them if they had. Do you think that Kerry did not dump his first wife? I'm surprised - she even wrote a book about it. Do you believe that depression is not a health problem? I am guessing you will have more than one or two Dopers to dispute that claim. Or have you really never heard of Heinz ketchup, and so don't believe that Ms. Kerry II is a rich heiress?

The parity thing? You probably got a point - spending four months in country, being shot in the ass with a piece of rice and then coming back home to poor-mouth your fellow veterans is not very equivalent to five years in a torture camp and coming back to lead a squadron to its first Meritorious Unit Commendation ever. ;)

Regards,
Shodan Move the goalposts much? You were equating John Kerry's first marriage and divorce to John McCain's, claiming that Kerry dumped his first wife for an heiress when his wife became ill, and alluding to adultery on his part. Every bit of that is factually incorrect with regard to Kerry, but true with regard to McCain.

And since that's the entirety of what I was replying to, I'm not going to allow you to drag me into your hijack on the other irrelevant points.

Good try, though. Once again, you don't disappoint.

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman

On the one hand he was ashamed of it, so much so that he threw medals that honor war wounded over a fence during a protest. . . Cite that Kerry was "ashamed" of his military service, and that that was the reason he threw his medals over the fence. (Hint: you've got your facts wrong on this one.)

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 12:00 PM

Because (particularly in the first bolded paragraph) it shows that Clark was a chain-of-command-jumper, a practice which is viewed very dimly by the brass a the Pentagon, and in general, throughout the entire Armed Forces. I'm sure it is, but that's not a character/integrity issue. That's a "didn't follow the rules of the tribe closely enough" issue.
accusations of being egomaniacal and overly ambitious.Something that can probably be said about most people who rise to high office.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 12:01 PM

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 12:05 PM

Shodan

06-30-2008, 12:13 PM

McCain didn't dump his first wife because she had "heath problems." He dumped her because she lost her beauty queen looks in a car accident (an accident she kept secret from him while he was a POW because she did not want to burden him with any extra worry) and he no longer thought she was an acceptable ornament for him.
I'm gonna need a cite for this. Unless you are merely making it up.

Could you kindly quote exact language where I say what sort of candidate I "could never support"?

Because I'm really, really curious as to where I said the things you describe here. I wasn't even discussing that subject.So, when you posted all that stuff about McCain in #56, it didn't have anything to do with the thread at all? Why exactly did you post irrelevancies? Were you thread-shitting on purpose?
Move the goalposts much? No, I don't.
You were equating John Kerry's first marriage and divorce to John McCain's, claiming that Kerry dumped his first wife for an heiress when his wife became ill, and alluding to adultery on his part. Every bit of that is factually incorrect with regard to Kerry, but true with regard to McCain.No, every word of what I said is true.

But for clarification, I did not accuse Kerry of adultery. The cite I provided was for the other information, all of which is part of the public record, and factually correct, your attempts to deny it notwithstanding.

And since that's the entirety of what I was replying to, I'm not going to allow you to drag me into your hijack on the other irrelevant points.Well, if you are merely going to post false statements and then run away, you could save time and bother by skipping the "post false statements" and go straight to the other part.

Regards,
Shodan

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-30-2008, 12:17 PM

I'm sure it is, but that's not a character/integrity issue. That's a "didn't follow the rules of the tribe closely enough" issue.
Something that can probably be said about most people who rise to high office.
But it isn't "rules of the tribe", it's just "The rules" in the military, and people whom don't abide by them get admonished. Clark didn't and was. It is a character issue, at least to me.

Shayna

06-30-2008, 12:27 PM

But for clarification, I did not accuse Kerry of adultery. The cite I provided was for the other information, all of which is part of the public record, and factually correct, your attempts to deny it notwithstanding. I said you alluded to Kerry committing adultery, and you did. All of the other information in your link is out of context, distorted, misrepresented, and doesn't in any way support your contention that John Kerry left his first wife because she became ill, let alone when she became ill, seeing as how she suffered from depression for a huge chunk of time during their marriage.

Nor does your dishonest cite even allege that Kerry dumped his wife for an heiress, another false claim you alluded to. His wife is the one who asked for the separation, not Kerry. Kerry and his wife were separated for 6 years, from 1982 through 1988, when their divorce was made final. He wasn't even introduced to Teresa Heinz until 1990.

Well, if you are merely going to post false statements and then run away, you could save time and bother by skipping the "post false statements" and go straight to the other part. HA HA HA! Og, you crack me up!

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman

sqweels

06-30-2008, 12:37 PM

Is dumping your first wife a factor to be considered in voting for a Presidential candidate? How about heroism? Military experience in general? Cocaine use? Flip flopping on issues?

Just so long as the outcome for McCain is the same as the outcome was for Kerry. Cocaine = OK, flip-flopping = you lose.

The parity thing? You probably got a point - spending four months in country, being shot in the ass with a piece of rice and then coming back home to poor-mouth your fellow veterans...

Has anyone on this board called McCain a "baby killer"? And yet Republicans are the kind of people who would evilly smear Kerry by making it sound like he was trying to get Americans to hate the troops when in fact he was holding the country's leadership responsible for sending troops into a situation where atrocities were inevitable. And on some level he was taking responsibility unto himself. That's why the ati-war movment sent a vet to talk to Congress--so there were no us/them issues vis-a-vis the military.

At least John Kerry quickly came over to the Light Side, unlike John "Bomb-Bomb" McCain.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 12:44 PM

But it isn't "rules of the tribe", it's just "The rules" in the military, and people whom don't abide by them get admonished. Clark didn't and was. It is a character issue, at least to me.Is it in the UCMJ? Or is it one of those unwritten rules?

If the latter, it's a rule of the tribe, not one of The Rules.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 01:00 PM

Well, once again, its like Twain said, a lie goes around the world twice before the truth can get out of bed and put its shoes on. "Obama campaign attacks McCain's military service", that's all anyone will remember.

And it just ain't so.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 01:08 PM

Obama addresses Wesleygate (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91KGSJO0&show_article=1) (obliquely):
Obama also sought to tamp down controversy surrounding comments over the weekend from a supporter. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said in a television appearance that the Vietnam War-era military service of John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent, does not necessarily qualify him to be commander in chief.

McCain was a fighter pilot who was captured and held as a prisoner of war for more than five years.

Obama said that patriotism "must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice" and sought to distance himself from Clark's remarks without mentioning them.

"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country—no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

The comment drew loud applause.

Separately, in a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

elucidator

06-30-2008, 01:10 PM

Well, that's smart politics, even though it edges too close to "truthiness".

Shodan

06-30-2008, 01:13 PM

I said you alluded to Kerry committing adultery, and you did. Nope, 'fraid not. I provided a cite for the statements I made, which are all completely accurate. I didn't provide a cite for any Kerry adultery, because I never claimed he committed adultery. (That was Clinton, so that if RT were to claim that adultery shows a lack of moral character, I could ask why he supported Clinton.) All of the other information in your link is out of context, distorted, misrepresented, and doesn't in any way support your contention that John Kerry left his first wife because she became ill, let alone when she became ill, seeing as how she suffered from depression for a huge chunk of time during their marriage. I didn't say that either.

Nor does your dishonest cite even allege that Kerry dumped his wife for an heiress, another false claim you alluded to. This is also documented fact. Kerry dumped his wife, who was suffering from health problems, and married a rich heiress, exactly as I claimed. Here's what I said -
So what you are saying is, you could never support a military man who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress, is that right? Every single, solitary word of which is literally true. Yes, Kerry was a military man (more or less). Yes, he dumped his first wife. Yes, she was having health problems. Yes, Kerry then married a rich heiress.

Now can we get back to the part where you run away, or do you need to repeat your falsehoods again?

Regards,
Shodan

Bosstone

06-30-2008, 01:15 PM

Well, that's smart politics, even though it edges too close to "truthiness".Unfortunately, the more he rejects and/or denounces folks, especially those on his side, the worse off I fear he appears.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 01:20 PM

That's how it works. There's the ancient story of Lyndon Johnson, in his earliest Texas campaigns, telling his press guy to start spreading the rumor that his opponent had unnatural carnal relations with his livestock.

"Good God, Lyndon, you can't go around saying your opponent fucks his cattle!"

"Of course not! But if I work it just right, I can get him to deny it."

Shayna

06-30-2008, 01:21 PM

Nope, 'fraid not. I provided a cite for the statements I made, which are all completely accurate. I didn't provide a cite for any Kerry adultery, because I never claimed he committed adultery. (That was Clinton, so that if RT were to claim that adultery shows a lack of moral character, I could ask why he supported Clinton.) I didn't say that either.
This is also documented fact. Kerry dumped his wife, who was suffering from health problems, and married a rich heiress, exactly as I claimed. Here's what I said -Every single, solitary word of which is literally true. Yes, Kerry was a military man (more or less). Yes, he dumped his first wife. Yes, she was having health problems. Yes, Kerry then married a rich heiress.

Now can we get back to the part where you run away, or do you need to repeat your falsehoods again?

Regards,
Shodan Truly, your disingenuinness is stunning.

John Kerry did not dump his wife, PERIOD. SHE is the one who asked for the separation. To contend otherwise is a flat out falsehood.

John Kerry, having not dumped his wife at all, couldn't possibly have dumped her when she was suffering from an illness, making the obvious allusion that her illness must have been a contributory factor another flat out falsehood.

John Kerry, having not even MET Teresa Heinz until 1990, a full 2 years after the finalization of his divorce, from the woman who INITIATED it herself, could not physically, possibly, have "dumped" said wife "for" a rich heiress.

That you would even attempt to spin this to match what John McCain did is ridiculous. That you would continue to maintain that you're posting 100% truthfully in the face of evidence to the contrary is outrageous.

I'm now done with you on this subject. You're wrong. Period. Full Stop.

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 01:21 PM

I'm gonna need a cite for this. Unless you are merely making it up.
So, when you posted all that stuff about McCain in #56, it didn't have anything to do with the thread at all? It did. But that's neither here nor there.

Again, please to quote the specific language where I say what sort of candidate I "could never support."

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 01:27 PM

Let me offer some information brought about by the simple expedient of being born before you and not dying. It worked. It was political theater, yes, it was meant to shock. It was meant to rock the public's notion that our heroes were all of one mind, and that mind was patriotic and supportive of the war, and shared their contempt for Dirty Fucking Hippies.

When Viet Nam vets started showing up for anti-war demonstrations, it was a sea-change. When you are marching with a guy wearing his campaign hat and has his sleeve pinned up over his missing arm with his Purple Heart, you didn't hear any screams of "Coward!" from the sidelines, you saw stunned disbelief and the horror of dearly-held illusions shattered. It worked.

If you were he, and believed as he believed, and believed it sincerely....what would you have done? What impolite, rude, nay, even "smarmy" things might you be willing to do to bring a senseless slaughter to an end?I think what he meant was that once Kerry tossed the decorations away, they should have stayed tossed away, rather than used later on to establish his credentials.

ALthough I supported Kerry's candidacy, I confess that this behavior wrt the decorations left me feeling uneasy. I'd be real glad to have someone explan why it was okay for the decorations to not remain thrown away.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 01:31 PM

I think what he meant was that once Kerry tossed the decorations away, they should have stayed tossed away, rather than used later on to establish his credentials.

ALthough I supported Kerry's candidacy, I confess that this behavior wrt the decorations left me feeling uneasy. I'd be real glad to have someone explan why it was okay for the decorations to not remain thrown away.
As far as I know, they did remain thrown away. I don't recall Kerry trying to cite them as a qualification during the campaign. The ones who brought them up were the Swiftboaters.

Lobohan

06-30-2008, 01:35 PM

I don't think the context makes it any less of a cheap shot. In fact, he interrupted the questioner to get it in, so we don't really even know where he was going with that statement.

It's just pathetic that you can read the quote in context and find any fault.

At least vent your spleen on outrages that actually happened.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 01:41 PM

Lobohan

06-30-2008, 01:44 PM

I'm now done with you on this subject. You're wrong. Period. Full Stop.

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman

Is this the part where Shodan runs away because he's embarrassed at what a stupid argument he made? :D

elucidator

06-30-2008, 01:45 PM

You're not from around here, are you, stranger?

E-Sabbath

06-30-2008, 01:52 PM

Lobohan

06-30-2008, 01:52 PM

You're not from around here, are you, stranger?

Call me an optimist.

Shodan

06-30-2008, 01:54 PM

It did. But that's neither here nor there.

Again, please to quote the specific language where I say what sort of candidate I "could never support."
Geez, RT, if you don't know what you are talking about, I think it is a bit much to ask me to explain it to you.
As far as I know, they did remain thrown away. I don't recall Kerry trying to cite them as a qualification during the campaign.
Oddly enough (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4806580&highlight=Kerry+medals#post4806580), you knew perfectly well back in 2004 that Kerry still had his medals. Funny how you seem to have forgotten.

Regards,
Shodan

elucidator

06-30-2008, 01:55 PM

Shodan

06-30-2008, 01:57 PM

I'm now done with you on this subject. You're wrong. Period. Full Stop.

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman
My experience is that people who make a claim and then say, "Period", they mean "I sure hope you stop arguing because I got nothing". As here.

Anyway, as long as we finally got to the "running away" part.

Regards,
Shodan

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 01:58 PM

As far as I know, they did remain thrown away. I don't recall Kerry trying to cite them as a qualification during the campaign. The ones who brought them up were the Swiftboaters.

Max Cleland introduced Kerry before his acceptance speech at the convention. This is from his remarks: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-29-cleland-speech-text_x.htm)

Thanks so much, Jim.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to share with you my story of how I came to know and love John Kerry. In April of 1968, while I was being airlifted out of Vietnam on a stretcher, Ensign John Kerry was headed in a different direction. He was on a Navy ship in the Pacific requesting to be transferred into Vietnam into the line of fire. He had graduated from college. There were a lot of other things he could have done with his life. But he went to serve because he had been raised to believe that service to one's country is honorable, noble, and good.

While John Kerry was earning a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, I was being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. I was 25 years old. My body was broken and my faith was shattered. One day, on leave from the hospital, a friend was pushing me around the city, in my new wheelchair. In front of the White House, it hit a curb. I fell forward out of the wheelchair. There were cigarette butts and trash all around me. I remember trying to lift myself up off the street. I was angry at the war. Saddened that veterans weren't getting good care. And frustrated that people in power weren't listening. Those were difficult days for me.

There were the medals, front and center. And this wasn't the only time they were mentioned during the campaign - not by a long shot.

Lobohan

06-30-2008, 02:02 PM

My experience is that people who make a claim and then say, "Period", they mean "I sure hope you stop arguing because I got nothing". As here.

Anyway, as long as we finally got to the "running away" part.

Regards,
Shodan

I notice that you didn't address the actual content of the post. Interesting.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-30-2008, 02:03 PM

Not by Kerry, though, but if it still bothers you so much, you don't have to vote for John Kerry in November.

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 02:05 PM

Here's what I said Originally Posted by Shodan
So what you are saying is, you could never support a military man who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress, is that right? -Every single, solitary word of which is literally true. Yes, Kerry was a military man (more or less). Yes, he dumped his first wife. Yes, she was having health problems. Yes, Kerry then married a rich heiress.You appear to be saying that it is literally true that he dumped her for a woman he never even got introduced to until two years after his divorce was final (and who wasn't even widowed until a year later).

See, if you're going to phrase it as "he dumped her for [another woman]," you are necessarily implying that Kerry ended his marriage because he wanted to marry the wife of the Republican senator from Pennsylvania.

This bespeaks an extraordinary level of careful planning and flawless execution on the part of Senator; perhaps you're saying he should have been elected on the basis of such ability.

Do you want to go a little further and accuse Senator Kerry of causing the plane crash that killed Senator Heinz?

Shayna

06-30-2008, 02:06 PM

Shayna, even the Queen of the Jungle must sometimes be humbled. Friend Shodan has offered you a cite from the Washington Times, who's commitment to truth is the stuff of legend, almost as revered and honored as the Unification Church which brought it forth, sprung from the widom of Sun Myung Moon as Athena from the brow of Zeus. He's got you there.

Why, even I was astonished at some of the revelations contained therein! For instance and to witless: ...Although he is one-quarter Jewish, Kerry has publicly practiced Catholicism and never openly acknowledged his Jewish heritage until forced to....
Gasp!

...Kerry turned and ran from the enemy. In the midst of his Viet Nam tour of duty...
Oh, my!

Sorry, Shayna, but when he's got the Moonie News behind him, you're pretty much sunk. Well damn, friend 'Luci, I was hoping you'd overlook all the Jew stuff. I mean, anyone who's a quarter secret Jew must have dumped his gravely ill wife who asked him to leave first, for an heiress he didn't even meet until 8 years later. What was I thinking??!!??: :eek:

And now that you've put two and two together, I must, indeed, hang my head in abject shame. :(

However can I make it up to you, dear friend?

P.S.
Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman, Queen of the Jungle, Full Jew

elucidator

06-30-2008, 02:11 PM

Which brings up an interesting side light about character. Back when I admired John McCain, it was a least partly based on his ability to honor his opposition with respect. It was widely known in anti-war DFH circles that McCain, while steadfastly defending America's Viet Nam involvement, developed a number of friendships in anti-war circles, marked by respectful disagreement.

His work with Kerry in advancing the cause of reconciliation with Viet Nam will stand to his credit regardless of what ensues. Honor where honor is due.

I wish he were the same man he was before the Presidential Virus took hold. He is not. More's the pity, ambition has accomplished a degradation that abuse and torment could not.

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 02:12 PM

Not by Kerry, though, but if it still bothers you so much, you don't have to vote for John Kerry in November.

You don't think every single line of every speech at that convention wasn't vetted by the campaign? And if he had an issue with the mention of the medals, he couldn't have had that struck from the speech?

You suspend disbelief at the most curious times.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 02:18 PM

You don't think every single line of every speech at that convention wasn't vetted by the campaign?...
I don't know. Dio doesn't know. And you do? Please submit your Certificate of Telepathy for examination.

Shayna

06-30-2008, 02:19 PM

I wish he were the same man he was before the Presidential Virus took hold. He is not. More's the pity, ambition has accomplished a degradation that abuse and torment could not. I'm not convinced that it's ambition that has degraded his political character. I mostly fault the current incarnation of the Religious Right Wing Republican Party, who has taken such a stranglehold on the party and the process, that no one who didn't purport to uphold their policies has a chance in hell of being elected.

I think John McCain (has come to) love this country so much that he truly wants to be at the helm so that he can make it the place he thinks would be better, same as Barack Obama. Sure, some ambition is requisite, but I don't think ambition alone is poisonous.

But he simply can't run as the same John McCain of 2000. That guy didn't win the nomination then, and he won't win the Presidency now. Unfortunately, I think down deep that's who he really is, but having to mold himself to this other guy is so difficult that it causes him to constantly contradict himself.

Now, no matter how you look at it, I think that's still a bad thing for this country. But I don't ascribe nefarious motives to him based on ambition.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 02:24 PM

As Kurt Vonnegut pointed out in his introduction to Mother Night:

"Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be."

Shodan

06-30-2008, 02:31 PM

I notice that you didn't address the actual content of the post. Interesting.
Actually, I did, three times. It keeps getting ignored. As in -
You appear to be saying that it is literally true that he dumped her for a woman he never even got introduced to until two years after his divorce was final (and who wasn't even widowed until a year later).I appear to be saying exactly what I did say, which you quoted as part of your own post. Yes, Kerry was a military man (more or less). Yes, he dumped his first wife. Yes, she was having health problems. Yes, Kerry then married a rich heiress.Each and every word of which is exactly, literally, completely true.

Now, if you would like to dispute that any or all of these claims are true, feel free. All of them are, and have been adequately documented. If you would care to continue to claim that I am accusing Kerry of adultery, again, feel free. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Regards,
Shodan

mlees

06-30-2008, 02:32 PM

The term, Dio, is Zero-Zero. Zero altitude, zero speed.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/project90.htm By '67, were they on the A-4? The '65 A-4Gs had them.
The A-4F had them. According to the best information, John McCain was in a A-4E. It probably did not have a Zero-Zero ejection seat.

Where are you finding the info on what seats were installed?

The A-4 was made by the Douglas Aircraft Corp, who also made ejection seats. I would guess that Douglas would have installed one of their own, as opposed to the one from the Weber Corp, on your link.

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
As far as I know, they did remain thrown away. I don't recall Kerry trying to cite them as a qualification during the campaign. Oddly enough (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4806580&highlight=Kerry+medals#post4806580), you knew perfectly well back in 2004 that Kerry still had his medals. Funny how you seem to have forgotten.

Regards,
ShodanOddly enough, you have just as much access as anyone to the post Dio was responding to, in which I used the word "decorations," not "medals". He doesn't seem to have forgotten anything at all.

You, on the other hand, appear to have overlooked the possibility that my choice of one word over the other was deliberate; and you seem to have rashly equated them, just so you could tweak the nose of a leftist.

Actually, the only thing that's odd is that you were so clumsy about it that a lightweight such as me was able to see through it and call you out.

Whack-a-Mole

06-30-2008, 02:35 PM

For all those who think that McCain's military service will make him a better president shouldn't they explain how that works?

Looking at the List of United States Presidents by Military Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_service) I see nothing that indicates having done military service (or not) has had any bearing on whether the President was a good one. There are good and bad ones to be had from both those with and without a military background.

In short I am not seeing military service as any kind of indicator of how good a POTUS someone will make.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 02:38 PM

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 02:39 PM

I don't know. Dio doesn't know. And you do?

In fact I do. This is an in-depth article describing the writing of Obama's keynote address at that convention. (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2007/The-Speech/index.php?cp=2&si=1) It describes the process well:

Giving a speech at a political convention is a tightly controlled process, coming under the watchful eyes of convention organizers and a team of professional speechwriters who read, edit, and fact-check every speech-from the prime-time addresses to the three-minute homilies in the daytime when the hall is mostly empty. At the 2004 convention, Vicky Rideout, a former speechwriter for the 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, oversaw the group of 15 or so speechwriters-mainly ex–Clinton White House writers and Capitol Hill pros. Working from a windowless FleetCenter room dubbed the Boiler Room, the wordsmiths and spinmeisters vetted around 200 speeches. They wrote some speeches entirely, and trimmed or tweaked others. Most of all, they made sure the speakers kept their speeches short, on message (meaning focused on Kerry and vice presidential candidate John Edwards), and positive-no personal attacks on Bush.

So there you go. I'm sure you'll find this information helpful - though, frankly, it was obvious at the outset.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 02:47 PM

DSeid

06-30-2008, 02:52 PM

Back to Clark's statement, the Team McCain reaction to it, and the Obama response ...

Clark's statement on its merits was not inaccurate: McCain's noble service does not qualify him nor disqualify him as an executive. It was nevertheless a silly thing to bring up from a political POV, but Clark has never been the wisest at working the media.

Team McCain tried to get Obama to make the mistake of saying that he could not be responsible for what his supporters say, which would then give Team McCain at least one Get Out Of Jail Free card for any negative campaigning done by McCain-centric 527s.

Team Obama didn't go for the head fake. They neither defended the statement (which is of course very defensible) nor claimed that Obama was not obligated to reject statements of supporters. He answered it in a quiet but clear manner, calmly rejected it, and can regain his own storyline.

McCain is now boxed in a bit. Obama will have a fair amount of control of his message. Oh sure there will be those like Clark will just go off on their own (Clark may have been trying to audition for the VP spot and didn't do too well if so) but Obama's representatives will likely stay on approved message and Obama won't have to worry too much about 527's distracting from how he wants his campaign packaged. McCain will be dealing with, nay relying on, 527s to sell his message for him. And now he is on record as believing that the candidate needs to be out in front rejecting and denouncing even things as benign as a statement that being a POW is not proof of executive ability. It will leave him looking a bit disingenuous when his surrogates attack Swiftboat style and he tries to claim that he cannot be held responsible for they say or do. He is now going to be forced to spend much time rejecting the support of those who advertise on his behalf or come across as whiney hypocrite.

I give this round a slight advantage Obama for the potential long term tactical gain even though McCain will pick up some in the short term from it.

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 02:53 PM

Thats kind of a long article, and I am not interested in reading every word in search of the elusive gotchaya. I will trust that you have, and can simply refer me directly to the part that proves your contention about Max Cleland's speech. Not Obama's, not Kerry's...Cleland.

Thanking you in advance, I remain, your obedient servant etc.

e.

I thought I had distilled this well for you by quoting. I shall spare you time by quoting further:

Giving a speech at a political convention is a tightly controlled process, coming under the watchful eyes of convention organizers and a team of professional speechwriters who read, edit, and fact-check every speech-from the prime-time addresses to the three-minute homilies in the daytime when the hall is mostly empty.

Now, every speech would necessarily include Cleland's, especially from the descriptions of how many speeches they vetted, and how minor some of them were. Cleland's was a major one.

Shayna

06-30-2008, 02:56 PM

I see now! Friend Shodan was merely posting a factual timeline, and not making any inferences at all! Simply a mundane recitation of fact, having no implication, or even relevence. He might have posted a recipe for coconut macaroons as easily. And more usefully. Actually, it's not even that simple, as his most recent allegation of truthiness, quotes himself from a later post than the original one that was being debunked. It's still not true, but it's also not an accurate representation of what he originally alleged, either.

Obviously he has no intention of posting anything useful in this thread, so it will have to be I who submits the desired recipe:

Shayna, Queen of the Jungle's, Nummy Macaroon Recipe

Ingredients
1 14oz bag sweetened flaked coconut
1 14oz can sweetened condensed milk (not evaporated milk)
1-1/2 tablespoons pure almond extract, vanilla extract, Amaretto or Grand Marnier
2 large egg whites
Pinch of salt

Directions
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper or aluminum foil.

Mix together the coconut, condensed milk, and almond extract, keeping the coconut as fluffy as possible.
Whisk the egg whites and salt until soft peaks form. Fold the egg whites into coconut mixture.

Using a soup spoon, scoop the macaroon batter into mounds or balls about the size of a Ping-Pong ball. Place about 1 inch apart on the lined cookie sheet. The macaroon batter should be handled very gently. Do not squeeze the batter. If your fingers become sticky from sliding the batter off the spoon, dip them in cold water.

Bake the macaroons until golden brown, 18 to 20 minutes. Allow the macaroons to cool a bit before removing them, but don't let them sit too long or they will glue themselves to the parchment.

Enjoy!

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman, Jew, who makes these to-die-for macaroons every year for Passover.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 02:59 PM

So, this fellow David Bernstien, he knows this stuff? He has the facts at his very fingertips? And I am obliged to take his word for it...why?

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 03:01 PM

I appear to be saying exactly what I did say, which you quoted as part of your own post. Yes, Kerry was a military man (more or less). Yes, he dumped his first wife. Yes, she was having health problems. Yes, Kerry then married a rich heiress. Each and every word of which is exactly, literally, completely true.

Now, if you would like to dispute that any or all of these claims are true, feel free.Okay, I'll dispute the claim that he dumped his first wife because he wanted to marry Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz. If you want to respond that you never made or implied such a claim, I will ask you to do it in the context of disputing this.Originally posted by kaylasdaad99
See, if you're going to phrase it as "he dumped her for [another woman]," you are necessarily implying that Kerry ended his marriage because he wanted to marry the wife of the Republican senator from Pennsylvania.All of them are, and have been adequately documented. If you would care to continue to claim that I am accusing Kerry of adultery, again, feel free. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Regards,
Shodan

Bolding mine. - kd99
Was that invitation directed to me or to Lobohan? In any event, neither of us claimed that you accused Kerry of adultery. You did accuse him of ending his marriage for the purpose of hooking up with a married woman whom he had never met.

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 03:22 PM

So, this fellow David Bernstien, he knows this stuff? He has the facts at his very fingertips? And I am obliged to take his word for it...why?

You have your cite - it's from Chicago magazine, which is run by the Tribune. If this isn't a good enough cite for you, I encourage you to find other information that we can discuss.

You're a smart and resourceful guy - I'm sure you can do so.

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 03:24 PM

Actually, it's not even that simple, as his most recent allegation of truthiness, quotes himself from a later post than the original one that was being debunked. It's still not true, but it's also not an accurate representation of what he originally alleged, either.

Obviously he has no intention of posting anything useful in this thread, so it will have to be I who submits the desired recipe:

Shayna, Queen of the Jungle's, Nummy Macaroon Recipe

Ingredients
1 14oz bag sweetened flaked coconut
1 14oz can sweetened condensed milk (not evaporated milk)
1-1/2 tablespoons pure almond extract, vanilla extract, Amaretto or Grand Marnier
2 large egg whites
Pinch of salt

Directions
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper or aluminum foil.

Mix together the coconut, condensed milk, and almond extract, keeping the coconut as fluffy as possible.
Whisk the egg whites and salt until soft peaks form. Fold the egg whites into coconut mixture.

Using a soup spoon, scoop the macaroon batter into mounds or balls about the size of a Ping-Pong ball. Place about 1 inch apart on the lined cookie sheet. The macaroon batter should be handled very gently. Do not squeeze the batter. If your fingers become sticky from sliding the batter off the spoon, dip them in cold water.

Bake the macaroons until golden brown, 18 to 20 minutes. Allow the macaroons to cool a bit before removing them, but don't let them sit too long or they will glue themselves to the parchment.

Enjoy!

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman, Jew, who makes these to-die-for macaroons every year for Passover.Sounds nummy, all right. I'd make a batch right now, except that my family won't eat coconut. :(

I wonder if they served macaroons at The Last Supper?

Shodan

06-30-2008, 03:39 PM

Okay, I'll dispute the claim that he dumped his first wife because he wanted to marry Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. If you want to respond that you never made or implied such a claim, I will ask you to do it in the context of disputing this.I don't exactly know what you mean by this.

Here is the statement I have made more than once -Yes, Kerry was a military man (more or less). Yes, he dumped his first wife. Yes, she was having health problems. Yes, Kerry then married a rich heiress.Kerry dumped his first wife, which is what I said, she was having health problems, then he married someone else.
Was that invitation directed to me or to Lobohan? In any event, neither of us claimed that you accused Kerry of adultery. You did accuse him of ending his marriage for the purpose of hooking up with a married woman whom he had never met.Hooking up with a married woman is adultery. I have mentioned often enough that it ought to stick that I am not accusing Kerry of having done this. So it is directed at anybody who thinks I am.

I can't tell if you honestly don't understand what is printed, or if you are choosing not to.

For convenience, here are the four claims. Kerry was a military man he dumped his first wife. she was having health problems. Kerry then married a rich heiressHere is a different claim - Kerry commited adulteryClaims 1-4 are true. I have not made claim A.[quote]

Regards,
Shodan

elucidator

06-30-2008, 03:43 PM

...I wonder if they served macaroons at The Last Supper?
No. The carrying capacity of a Canaanite swallow is less then 3 ounces....

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99
Okay, I'll dispute the claim that he dumped his first wife because he wanted to marry Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz.Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.No kidding? Well you're the one who said he dumped his first wife for a rich heiress.

Lobohan

06-30-2008, 04:00 PM

I can't tell if you honestly don't understand what is printed, or if you are choosing not to.

For convenience, here are the four claims. Kerry was a military man he dumped his first wife. she was having health problems. Kerry then married a rich heiressHere is a different claim - Kerry commited adulteryClaims 1-4 are true. I have not made claim A.

Regards,
Shodan
What you said was:
So what you are saying is, you could never support a military man who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress, is that right?
It's just silly, admit you used sleazy untrue implications to make a stupid partisan point and move on.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 04:05 PM

...Kerry commited adultery[/list]Claims 1-4 are true. I have not made claim A....
Have you big brown innocent eyes? Would be a help, here....

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 04:13 PM

Geez, RT, if you don't know what you are talking about, I think it is a bit much to ask me to explain it to you. How about if we stop cluttering up this thread with this nonsense? You're invited to the Pit (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=473788).

Liberal

06-30-2008, 04:20 PM

One talking head on MSNBC today (Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post) raised the interesting point that what General Clark said yesterday is pretty much the same thing Bush's campaign was saying about McCain in 2000.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 04:20 PM

Sounds nummy, all right. I'd make a batch right now, except that my family won't eat coconut. :(

I wonder if they served macaroons at The Last Supper?Maybe at the Last Brunch (http://www.fathersarducci.com/pagetwo.html).

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 04:22 PM

No. The carrying capacity of a Canaanite swallow is less then 3 ounces....So? Macaroons weigh less than 3 ounces each...

:confused:

elucidator

06-30-2008, 04:29 PM

Can't carry a coconut. Accounts for the lack of coconut shells for horse-clop sound effects in Jerusalem as well.

RTFirefly

06-30-2008, 04:30 PM

It's just silly, admit you used sleazy untrue implications to make a stupid partisan point and move on.Two chances that that'll happen - slim and none. And Slim left town.

I don't mind sharing my Pit thread, which is about the fundamental inanity of these sorts of runarounds. Shodan will refuse to acknowledge the 'for,' and will get some mysterious pleasure out of it.

Hell, I think that thought needs to be completed in the Pit anyway.

Frank

06-30-2008, 04:30 PM

Have you big brown innocent eyes? Would be a help, here....
His name is Shodan, not Dondi.

elucidator

06-30-2008, 04:37 PM

His name is Shodan, not Dondi.
Damn, are you ever old!

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 04:38 PM

Can't carry a coconut. Accounts for the lack of coconut shells for horse-clop sound effects in Jerusalem as well.They could have sent for a package of coconut. Well, three 3-ounce packages...

42fish

06-30-2008, 04:56 PM

E-Sabbath

06-30-2008, 05:12 PM

I recall hearing that you had to have an open chute at least one hundred feet in the air to have any effect. IIRC, in Wolfe's book The Right Stuff, anything less than that was referred to as "commiting suicide to avoid getting killed."
Check my Project 90 link. They may not have been trusted that well, but they did work. If, of course, you had one. John McCain did not.

The question is... why do I even _know_ about that?

E-Sabbath

06-30-2008, 05:28 PM

Where are you finding the info on what seats were installed?

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/60s/a-4e-f_48.htm
It's not the best link, being about the model, but it says that "The A-4F also introduced the zero/zero ejection seat into the type for the first time."

I'll believe that. The project 90 link was to find out when the Zero-Zero was invented. I can't find a model earlier than the F that has a mention of a zero-zero. I can find references about McCain that say his Skyhawk didn't have one, but they're emotionally involved and less trustworthy.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=57&bg=373
This discusses the TA-4E(renamed into the 4F) two seater version with Escapac zero-zero seats. This suggests the E and D did _not_ have them.

It is possible there was a refit that I can't find a source for, but it seems unlikely, considering the era.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/escapacfr.htm
Hm. Okay, we're confirming Douglas Escapacs on A-4s, and we're confirming the earliest models did not have (much plausible) zero-zero capability. (No stability.)
http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/a-4/scooter04.shtml
Okay, so we're looking at 1-A1s on the E, and C-3s in the F, and the C had the rocket stability if I understand correctly.
That would be the point of difference.
I may be in error, as I wasn't there. I am going to say that the capability had only existed for two years at that point... which probably wasn't enough for widespread deployment.

gonzomax

06-30-2008, 05:55 PM

I am sure Kerry is not running for president. Why his life is being brought up I can not imagine, unless of course Obama was not guilty of such transgressions against his marriage and McCain is. But,if you are looking for a bastions of family values, politicians are not where I would look.
The difference is that the Repugs have marriage and family values as a campaign plank. The Dems do not. The Repubs need to start by living the values they hold so important for the rest of us. It is hypocritical.

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 06:11 PM

The difference is that the Repugs have marriage and family values as a campaign plank. The Dems do not. The Repubs need to start by living the values they hold so important for the rest of us. It is hypocritical.

You think the Democrats don't have family values as a campaign plank?

garygnu

06-30-2008, 06:13 PM

I am sure Kerry is not running for president. Why his life is being brought up I can not imagine...
Buried up there is an actual, if not very good, reason for it. I'll try to give the short, short version: Somebody said or implied that a mark against John McCain is the nature of the transition from his first to second wife. Someone else responded that Kerry did something similar, but it wasn't considered a mark against Kerry in 2004 by those who would fault McCain for the transgression in 2008.
The analogy breaks down because whatever similarities there are between the two end right where the part where the bad moral behaviors begin. Plus the contention that Kerry "dumped" his wife because she was having health problems is dubious at the least.

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 06:21 PM

I will confess that I made the analogy in another thread, but only to argue that it didn't matter much for either man. I didn't get too far into the weeds in the analogy because I was arguing that it didn't matter.

And it doesn't - if anyone believes after a divorced Reagan and the soap opera that was Clinton voters actually give a shit about this stuff, they're nuts.

Mosier

06-30-2008, 06:22 PM

Sorry to interrupt, but I thought it might be worth mentioning that Obama has shown a lot of sense in his public reaction to the article in the original post.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_clark

FoieGrasIsEvil

06-30-2008, 06:52 PM

I'm not convinced that it's ambition that has degraded his political character. I mostly fault the current incarnation of the Religious Right Wing Republican Party, who has taken such a stranglehold on the party and the process, that no one who didn't purport to uphold their policies has a chance in hell of being elected.

I think John McCain (has come to) love this country so much that he truly wants to be at the helm so that he can make it the place he thinks would be better, same as Barack Obama. Sure, some ambition is requisite, but I don't think ambition alone is poisonous.

But he simply can't run as the same John McCain of 2000. That guy didn't win the nomination then, and he won't win the Presidency now. Unfortunately, I think down deep that's who he really is, but having to mold himself to this other guy is so difficult that it causes him to constantly contradict himself.

Now, no matter how you look at it, I think that's still a bad thing for this country. But I don't ascribe nefarious motives to him based on ambition.
See, I can get behind this. But don't ALL politicians do this, to varying degrees?
Even Obama shifts his message to play to the crowd they're speaking in front of. Not to mention that a candidate has to submit to a certain amount of pressure on certain key issues wirthin the scope of their party just in order to even be electable and have party support (read: money).

I still like McCain, and I also like Obama's fresh perspective, but I am going to hold out on a voting decision until the debates have taken place.

E-Sabbath

06-30-2008, 07:37 PM

gonzomax

06-30-2008, 07:42 PM

Sam Stone

06-30-2008, 08:42 PM

http://dj-astellarlife.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-dumped-his-disfigured-first-wife.html Heres a nice Daily Mail article on McCain. It is in England so do not blame the Dems. They question his values and do not see much to recommend him He ran around a lot .
It is always the hypocrisy.

Yes... The hypocrisy. Like discovering now that a 25 year old affair is a horrible character flaw, but when Bill Clinton was fighting his 'bimbo eruptions', getting hummers in the Oval Office, and being sued for sexual misconduct, we were told that this is a completely private affair, nothing to see here, it has nothing to do with his ability to do a good job as President. When he went so far as to lie under oath in his sexual assault trial, we were told that it still had nothing to with his ability to be president, and that a person's private life is private.

Of course, before Bill Clinton came along, the left argued that bosses who nailed their underlings were behaving unethically because it wasn't really a consensual relation because of the power imbalance. But then when the most powerful man in the world nailed a young intern, everyone looked the other way and said it was a private matter between the two of them.

But that was then. Now you've got an old affair of McCain's to dredge up, so suddenly cheating on the wife is a horrible character flaw that must be held in account when voting for president. What a surprise.

levdrakon

06-30-2008, 08:59 PM

Yes... The hypocrisy. Like discovering now that a 25 year old affair is a horrible character flaw, but when Bill Clinton was fighting his 'bimbo eruptions', getting hummers in the Oval Office, and being sued for sexual misconduct, we were told that this is a completely private affair, nothing to see here, it has nothing to do with his ability to do a good job as President.I'm not sure what you mean by "we were told it was private" etc.

That's not quite how I remember it. What we were told is Clinton was a filthy disgusting scumbag who must be impeached, and he almost was, after months & years of some pretty hellacious vitriol and slobbering at the mouth and gnashing of teeth.

You make it sound like we were told it was no big deal so it wasn't a big deal but that's not how it was at all, and I think Hillary is out of the running at least in part because she's the bitch who stood by her filthy, no good cheating husband. People remember hating her, though when asked they almost can't remember now; they just remember hating her, and vowing to hate her forever.

Little Nemo

06-30-2008, 09:04 PM

My experience is that people who make a claim and then say, "Period", they mean "I sure hope you stop arguing because I got nothing".That's funny. I've had a similar experience with people who make a claim and then say "regards".

cosmosdan

06-30-2008, 09:30 PM

Actually, it's not even that simple, as his most recent allegation of truthiness, quotes himself from a later post than the original one that was being debunked. It's still not true, but it's also not an accurate representation of what he originally alleged, either.

Obviously he has no intention of posting anything useful in this thread, so it will have to be I who submits the desired recipe:

Shayna, Queen of the Jungle's, Nummy Macaroon Recipe

Ingredients
1 14oz bag sweetened flaked coconut
1 14oz can sweetened condensed milk (not evaporated milk)
1-1/2 tablespoons pure almond extract, vanilla extract, Amaretto or Grand Marnier
2 large egg whites
Pinch of salt

Directions
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper or aluminum foil.

Mix together the coconut, condensed milk, and almond extract, keeping the coconut as fluffy as possible.
Whisk the egg whites and salt until soft peaks form. Fold the egg whites into coconut mixture.

Using a soup spoon, scoop the macaroon batter into mounds or balls about the size of a Ping-Pong ball. Place about 1 inch apart on the lined cookie sheet. The macaroon batter should be handled very gently. Do not squeeze the batter. If your fingers become sticky from sliding the batter off the spoon, dip them in cold water.

Bake the macaroons until golden brown, 18 to 20 minutes. Allow the macaroons to cool a bit before removing them, but don't let them sit too long or they will glue themselves to the parchment.

Enjoy!

Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman, Jew, who makes these to-die-for macaroons every year for Passover.

Amaretto or Grand Marnier??? Yum yum, This is the spiked maccaroon recipe isn't it? How generous can I be with the Grand Marnier?

chacoguy

06-30-2008, 10:14 PM

Would that he had remained uncontentious.

That's not accurate, even according to his own account as told in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report. He thought it over for several days, weighing both the political and military consequences. The two factors that convinced him to stay were that (1) he didn't want to be used as a propaganda tool and (2) the military Code of Conduct prohibited it.

Suddenly "The Cat" said to me, "Do you want to go home?"

I was astonished, and I tell you frankly that I said that I would have to think about it. I went back to my room, and I thought about it for a long time. At this time I did not have communication with the camp senior ranking officer, so I could get no advice. I was worried whether I could stay alive or not, because I was in rather bad condition. I had been hit with a severe case of dysentery, which kept on for about a year and a half. I was losing weight again.

But I knew that the Code of Conduct says, "You will not accept parole or amnesty," and that "you will not accept special favors." For somebody to go home earlier is a special favor. There's no other way you can cut it.

I went back to him three nights later. He asked again, "Do you want to go home?" I told him "No." He wanted to know why, and I told him the reason. I said that Alvarez [first American captured] should go first, then enlisted men and that kind of stuff.

"The Cat" told me that President Lyndon Johnson had ordered me home. He handed me a letter from my wife, in which she had said, "I wished that you had been one of those three who got to come home." Of course, she had no way to understand the ramifications of this. "The Cat" said that the doctors had told him that I could not live unless I got medical treatment in the United States.

We went through this routine and still I told him "No." Three nights later we went through it all over again. On the morning of the Fourth of July, 1968, which happened to be the same day that my father took over as commander in chief of U. S. Forces in the Pacific, I was led into another quiz room.

"The Rabbit" and "The Cat" were sitting there. I walked in and sat down, and "The Rabbit" said, "Our senior wants to know your final answer."

"My final answer is the same. It's 'No.' "

"That is your final answer?"

"That is my final answer."

John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account, U.S.News & World ReportNo spitting. No hanging arm sockets. Just a methodical thinking process.

Thanks for the correction, I was ten when that report came out. BTW, I'm not voting for him, but I still believe that he's an honorable man that shouldn't be 'Swift Boated'

chacoguy

06-30-2008, 10:16 PM

They have ejection seats that will actually work from a standing plane and not kill the pilot?

-Joe

I understand that they're called 'zero/zero' as in zero altitude and zero MPH.

They're not supposed to kill the pilot.

kaylasdad99

06-30-2008, 11:12 PM

I understand that they're called 'zero/zero' as in zero altitude and zero MPH.

They're not supposed to kill the pilot.Half a day late and a dollar-twenty short.* (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9955489&postcount=148) Plus the contention that McCain didn't have one on his plane.

Anyway, welcome aboard.

*That's calculating 60 posts at everybody's $.02

Mr. Moto

06-30-2008, 11:32 PM

McCain may have thought the matter over in peace for several days, but according to his own account and those of others there, when he gave the "wrong" answer to the North Vietnamese, they beat him severely for it.

So let's not try to paper over what went down over there.

I have said before that a man's veteran's status really doesn't matter in an election - but this has gone way past silly and is heading right into offensive.

Sam Stone

07-01-2008, 12:05 AM

I understand that they're called 'zero/zero' as in zero altitude and zero MPH.

They're not supposed to kill the pilot.

I don't think you can fairly call climbing out of the airplane a heroic act - even if that plane had a zero-zero ejection seat, most pilots didn't trust them, and many would choose to try to land a crippled airplane rather than risk ejection. A lot of them died trying.

Back then, if the ejection didn't kill you, you had a good chance of being kneecapped, or having spinal injuries from the explosive force of the ejection, or ejecting and coming down in front of the ship - or into the fire.

And finally, I don't think it would have occurred to a typical pilot to attempt an ejection from an airplane sitting still on the ground like that. McCain probably just thought, "Jesus, I'd better get the hell out of dodge" and scrambled out as fast as he could. And since he did get out safely, it would seem he made a good judgment call.

However, just being a carrier pilot in combat back then was heroic. Hell, just landing on a carrier at night takes giant brass balls, let alone doing it in a war zone day in and day out with 60's era technology. There are no cowards flying fighters off of carrier decks - even in peacetime.

mlees

07-01-2008, 12:35 AM

Alternatively, I can't find out when the Escapacs were mounted on the Skyhawks. They _could_ have been a refit. Either way, the first successful zero-zero test was late '65, and the Forrestal fire was '67. And Project 90 was a different company from Douglas. So... slightly more than a year for a company other than the originator to start mass production and perform a refit... not likely, and even if they did, it'd be the very first model. Not worth trusting.
... probably didn't have the stabilization needed, though, as per the Escapac site cite.

Ok. Thanks for the info. I hope my questions were not viewed as hostile cite requests. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal_fire

Another possibilty to consider is that McCain's aircraft was sitting amongst several others on the aft section of the flightdeck, all fully fueled, and most had pilots in them preparing for a strike mission. When the crap hit the fan, several wing mounted gas pods ruptured, spilling fuel all over the deck, which ignited.

I don't know what McCain could see from his cockpit, but even if he had a zero-zero ejection seat, using it might not have been a good idea. An ejection seat uses rockets to fire the pilot away, and the rocket flames might ignite the fuel in and around McCain's jet, further endangering the pilots in the aircraft near him.

I am not a pilot, so I don't know for sure, but it's possible that pilots are told/trained not to eject from their aircraft when they are parked close together like that.

RTFirefly

07-01-2008, 04:23 AM

Of course, before Bill Clinton came along, the left argued that bosses who nailed their underlings were behaving unethically because it wasn't really a consensual relation because of the power imbalance. But then when the most powerful man in the world nailed a young intern, everyone looked the other way and said it was a private matter between the two of them. I missed the part where 'everyone' looked the other way. The whole freakin' "liberal media" was outraged.

I realize you're in Canada, Sam, so you may have missed this, but daily readers of the 'liberal' Washington Post sure didn't.

The only debate was, was it grounds for impeachment? Remember the much-maligned MoveOn.org? It started life as "Censure and Move on."

But that was then. Now you've got an old affair of McCain's to dredge up, so suddenly cheating on the wife is a horrible character flaw that must be held in account when voting for president. What a surprise.Let's get back to its relevance, OK?

It doesn't disqualify McCain for the Presidency in and of itself. What it does is undermine (decisively, IMHO) the claim that his immediately preceding experience in Vietnam somehow made him a man of character and integrity in other areas of his life.

If (generic) you want to vote for McCain because he's better on the issues, that's fine. If you want to vote for him because you think his recent political track record demonstrates character and integrity (yeh, riiiight!), then whatever. But McCain's five years in the Hanoi Hilton say absolutely zero about his present character and integrity.

That is what his tawdry past says. That's all I'm arguing it says: that was a long time ago, and people do grow and change. (Can't speak for gonzomax, of course, but I'm gonna make you respond to stronger arguments than his if you want to do these comparisons.) But Vietnam was even longer ago, and McCain's life in the wake of Vietnam clearly shows no carryover of character from that experience.

If Bill Clinton were to run for elective office again, I doubt that anyone would say, "vote for him because his Arkansas days demonstrate his character and integrity." But if they did, I'd agree that that argument would have similarly been proven ludicrous.