# Critique the Rolling Stone article damning John McCain **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814 "2008-10-14T01:04:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/21 "2008-10-14T04:46:22Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > It’s an interesting article, and the McCain campaign has clearly raised the issue of personal history here, both in reference to McCain and Obama, so I think it’s fair to look at. I’d appreciate it if [Factcheck.org](http://Factcheck.org) would critique it. Done. [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did\_mccain\_crash\_five\_planes\_did\_he.html](http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_mccain_crash_five_planes_did_he.html) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/22 "2008-10-14T04:47:16Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Are you suggesting that any of the threads around here will do those things? If not why the special hand wave for this one? None of the threads around here will do anything but keep the producers of Accupril and Lisinopril fed and happy for a few more months. But then, I was not talking about this thread. I was noting that the gossip in the _Rolling Stone_ article was worthless as a measure of whom to support for president. The only change I made in this thread was to tone down the title (when there was only one responding post to the thread) so that I would not have to put up with posters whining on page 4 that the thread title was poisoning the well of the discussion. Had the OP, itself, followed the language of the title, I’d have simply sent it to the **Pit** or closed it. The _Rolling Stone_ article has already been referenced in several different threads and the actual OP, as written, provided a fairly neutral description of the piece, so this provided an opportunity to have the piece discussed in a less heated fashion–except that the title was inflammatory. It seemed that we would have a better discussion if folks proceeded from the OP without the misdirection of the original title. And I doubt that we would have gotten a less partisan OP if this thread was closed or moved and someone else tried to start a similar thread in **GD**. We’re nearly twenty posts into the thread and we still have not been subjected to a single _Bush suxxors_ or _Clinton got a blowjob_ or _The Demlicans (or Repubocrats) are evil incarnate_, so I suspect that my instincts were OK in this case. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/23 "2008-10-14T05:10:08Z")
[QUOTE=Clu-Me-In] Well, in that case you must truly despise John McCain’s attempt to assasinate Barack Obama’s character. Right? [/QUOTE] Yep, I surely do. In fact, his ousting Weaver (?) as campaign manager in favor of Steve Schmidt, a Karl Rove associate, sounded the first warning alarm for me about McCain. Unfortunately, slime sank to its own level. McCain’s campaign hasn’t just been disorganized, it’s also been actively nasty. And yeah, I despise it and won’t support it. Not that it matters, but I find it particularly unforgivable because McCain and his family were slandered so viciously by Rove/Shrub in '04. He was bitterly angry about it so he knows first-hand how sleazy and dishonorable those tactics are. Simply put, he knows better but used them anyway. Given Rove/Shrub’s ‘success’ with the practice, perhaps he thought winning would justify the means. I find some real encouragement in signs that the electorate, or at least some, are finally rejecting the tactics. If scorched earth tactics aren’t rewarded, maybe they’ll fall out of use. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/24 "2008-10-14T05:28:35Z")
[QUOTE=The Second Stone] For better or worse, infidelity, ill or not, is something Americans consider. [/QUOTE] Yes, they–we–do. And I’m not at all sure that’s a legitimate public concern. Around time of the Ken Starr Inquisition I read a joke to the effect that Washington was deafening from the sound of hastily hoisted zippers. IIRC a few prominent Republican types were discovered in long-term affairs as well, much in a tit-for-tat spirit, but the ‘scandals’ mostly fizzled out from lack of interest. Maybe I’m a cynic but I’ve never believed that the DC corridors of power aren’t littered with guys who regard getting laid as a perk of office. Some probably don’t but the critical requirement seems to be discretion, not actual abstinence. I wonder about the wives involved, especially when they do the stoic ‘stand by your man perp walk’ when the cheating husbands tearfully confess their infidelities and deep regrets to the media. It’s still firmly _none of my business_ but just once I’d like to see a cheated-on wife refuse to stand pilloried beside the cheater. “You screwed around on your own, pal, so you handle _this_ press conference on your own too.” ---
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/25 "2008-10-14T05:42:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Smart people use their connections. How is that damning? > > Smart politicians use what works to get elected. Again, how is that damning? > > Unless you think that being intelligent and realistic is a bad thing, this argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of water. Yes and no. Smart qualified people use connections (even family ones) to get jobs they deserve, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. The article, however, paints a picture of McCain as unqualified for the positions he got due to his family’s connections. Don’t you think there’s a difference? ---
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/26 "2008-10-14T05:59:34Z")
For all of the talk that the entire article is a gossip peice, I would have to disagree. I loathe this culture of smearing opponents and pandering to the patriots, but there’s a difference between irrelevant gossip and pertinent personal history. Some of what’s in the article, indeed, is probably not terribly telling of the kind of president that McCain would be. Yet, there is a lot in there that, if true, is quite worth considering (his temper, his sense of entitlement, his view of women, etc.). Sure, I suppose we’ve had presidents who were hot-headed or unfaithful, but does the fact that they were presidents exclude us from considering it every time we choose the next president. There are a number of factors that go into deciding whether a person will be a good president, should we not consider all of it. Moreover, while this article isn’t necessarily going to sway most swing voters, it might possible create more swing voters. It seems to me that there are many out there who are not particularly excited about McCain’s stance on issues, but they’ve chosen him over Obama becuase of the appeal of his personal mythology. Were it that McCain was not so often given a pass when it comes to questioning his story, I think there would be a lot more swing voters than there are now. Not that it really matters, given the slim chances of McCain winning this election. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/27 "2008-10-14T08:10:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > But then, I was not talking about this thread. I was noting that the gossip in the _Rolling Stone_ article was worthless as a measure of whom to support for president. I’m not sure I would call it gossip. After all, McCain alludes to his POW experience over and over: it seems fair to take a look at the man’s life history. Profiles are done all the time and there’s nothing wrong with that. This profile was a hatchet job. All the evidence seemed to line up in the same direction, which was either an amazing coincidence or a case of poor reporting. For example, here’s what the author has to say about McCain’s performance as a Vietnam pilot: > [@Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone](#): > > McCain performed adequately on the Oriskany. On October 25th, 1967, he bombed a pair of Soviet MiGs parked on an airfield outside Hanoi. His record was now even. Enemy planes destroyed by McCain: two. American planes destroyed by McCain: two. > > The next day, McCain embarked on his fateful 23rd mission, a bombing raid on a power plant in downtown Hanoi. Golly gee Mr. Dickinson, shouldn’t we learn something else about McCain’s other 21 missions? The next time a modern conservative complains about the liberal media, they should be directed towards this article. You think NPR has liberal bias? No: _this_ piece has liberal bias. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/28 "2008-10-14T10:13:46Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > I wonder about the wives involved, especially when they do the stoic ‘stand by your man perp walk’ when the cheating husbands tearfully confess their infidelities and deep regrets to the media. It’s still firmly _none of my business_ but just once I’d like to see a cheated-on wife refuse to stand pilloried beside the cheater. “You screwed around on your own, pal, so you handle _this_ press conference on your own too.” What else are they to do? Often, they’ve enjoyed a particular lifestyle and status that had long been tied to their spouse’s success. If they don’t help fight to save it, they risk going from hosting tea parties and watching the pool boy work to eating Cheetos alone while watching Orpah. Or worse, getting just a plain old job. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/29 "2008-10-14T10:18:41Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > None of that is damning in and of itself; pretending to be something else while doing it is the definition of hypocritical. Which is also the definition of playing politics. > [@gitfiddle](#): > > Yes and no. Smart qualified people use connections (even family ones) to get jobs they deserve, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. The article, however, paints a picture of McCain as unqualified for the positions he got due to his family’s connections. Don’t you think there’s a difference? What qualifications do you need to be a politician? ---
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/30 "2008-10-14T10:39:41Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > What qualifications do you need to be a politician? There’s certainly no set list of qualifications for being a politician, per se, but I think many of us could think of a number that we feel would good for a politician to have (starting, perhaps, with a good knowledge of how the government works, or is supposed to). Yet, my comment wasn’t saying that McCain wasn’t qualified to be a politician. It was saying that, even by his own admission (as far as the article quotes him) he was at least unqualified for one of his positions, as I quoted in the OP: > [@](#): > > Then, at the end of 1974, McCain finally achieved the goal he had been working toward for years. He was installed as the commanding officer of the largest air squadron in the Navy — the Replacement Air Group based in Jacksonville, Florida — training carrier pilots. It was a post for which McCain flatly admits, “I was not qualified.” By now, however, he was unembarrassed by his own nepotism. At the ceremony commemorating his long-sought ascension to command, his father looking on with pride, McCain wept openly. To me, someone who believes himself to be unqualified for such an important position but takes it anyway is not really someone who puts country first. Had McCain been highly qualified for that position and gotten it because of his name, I wouldn’t really have any qualms. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/31 "2008-10-14T12:19:52Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > The article bothers me only for the fact that it exists. I understand why it does all right–the culture of forensic gossip applied to political figures–but it’s part of the reason I’ve regarded assassination politics with disgust. It doesn’t matter which ‘side’ uses it or at whom. It’s fundamentally rotten, and I use that word deliberately. I think its use corrupts the entire political system. > > I also question the easy assumption that some actions can reflect amorphous qualities of ‘character’, especially as assumed to extend to the public sphere. I emphatically do _not_ admire the extramarital escapades of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards and John McCain, ad nauseum. I once read a murder mystery, written by a rabbi, with the plot centered around the Talmudic definitions of gossip vs. information. Simplified madly, the core aspect comes down to whether a person’s actions require an action from me. Not a judgment; I can think whatever I want. But did what the person _do_ actually affect my life in any way that would require an reaction from me? > > Overwhelming, the answer is usually ‘no’. I don’t like or approve of infidelity but the matter resides between the two people in the marriage. If I know the people, maybe I’ll be extra kind to the betrayed party in case a confidante is needed or wanted. But total strangers? Doesn’t affect my life at all so it is, in all senses, _none of my business_. The treatment John Edwards and John McCain and Newt Gingrich gave their first wives was ugly. I don’t think it reflects well on them personally, as mates and parents, but I don’t think it has a damned thing to do with how well they could perform their public duties either. > > My other problem with assassination political tactics is that they never encompass all the various truths. My mentioned examples of cheating on ill/badly injured wives are pretty hard to justify but nobody outside those marriages can know the complexities of them either. > > Finally, I really despise the whole ‘forensic character’ industry because it’s so binary. Public people are still just people. They make mistakes. Actually it’s how people learn. It’s ridiculous to mine the past for personal flubs and flaws that can be imputed to impact actual job performance. FDR was cordially _loathed_ by many during his day but his quite obvious physical infirmity was never used against him. Being physically crippled wasn’t assumed to limit his executive abilities. Or maybe there was just a different sense of fair play then, or polio was common enough that too many families had members similarly struck. > > I’ve really wandered around the north forty on this one, probably to muddled effect. But the growth of this culture of nastiness is one of the most alarming trends in politics IMO. I think you are being myopic here. I agree that character assassination is a ugly business, and agree that in large part they have absolutely no bearing on the persons ability to perform the job. However, it’s important to note that the politicians have opened the door on this one. If they are going to try and get elected based on their “character” and personal mythos then it’s a necessary evil that the media and opposing campaigns respond. If such pieces didn’t exist politicians would be able to freely promote themselves as demigods or whatever focus group approved profile is the most beneficial. I’m of the opinion that character should be left out of the process entirely. I don’t want to know what these people’s “family values” are. What their religious stances are, etc. Talk about your platform and your principles of governance. But, to dismiss this article and others of the same vein without blaming the politicians for establishing the fundamentals of the game is naive. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/32 "2008-10-14T12:26:17Z")
Agreed. If McCain would sell himself as 100% his voting record, the policies he’s spoken out for (and against) forthrightly, and 0% on how much more a patriot he is than his opponent, how much better a human being, how much more trustworthy, etc. he is, then I’d give him a pass on the character shit he thinks is so important as applied to Obama. But he doesn’t, and I don’t. Take no shit, take no prisoners. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/33 "2008-10-14T12:42:44Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Agreed. If McCain would sell himself as 100% his voting record, the policies he’s spoken out for (and against) forthrightly, and 0% on how much more a patriot he is than his opponent, how much better a human being, how much more trustworthy, etc. he is, then I’d give him a pass on the character shit he thinks is so important as applied to Obama. But he doesn’t, and I don’t. Take no shit, take no prisoners. Tell me, do you really think that changing the subject from the economy and how a McCain administration would be an extension of failed Bush policies to a discussion of McCain’s actions as a young man, which _do_ by the way include putting his life on the line and suffering some as a consequence no matter how much of an arrogant selfish asshole he was as well, _helps_ increase the likelihood of an Obama victory in 3 weeks? Cause I gotta tell you, if you do, you are wrong. McCain having been an arrogant reckless impulsive young man with poor judgment doesn’t matter to people, even if you could demonstrate it beyond any doubt. McCain’s _current_ arrogance, recklessness, impulsivity, and poor judgment does. And the evidence for that is more in your face than this article is. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/34 "2008-10-14T13:01:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Tell me, do you really think that changing the subject from the economy and how a McCain administration would be an extension of failed Bush policies to a discussion of McCain’s actions as a young man, which _do_ by the way include putting his life on the line and suffering some as a consequence no matter how much of an arrogant selfish asshole he was as well, _helps_ increase the likelihood of an Obama victory in 3 weeks? > > Cause I gotta tell you, if you do, you are wrong. McCain having been an arrogant reckless impulsive young man with poor judgment doesn’t matter to people, even if you could demonstrate it beyond any doubt. McCain’s _current_ arrogance, recklessness, impulsivity, and poor judgment does. And the evidence for that is more in your face than this article is. I think Obama is doing the right thing in sticking to issues as much as he has, and as tempting as it is to dish McCain on his character. But I vote, and I advocate, based on character issues AND policy issues. If McCain were espousing his policies exclusively, I probably would vote for Obama anyway, but I would respect McCain a hell of a lot more than I do for his running a campaign based on crummy policies and appeals to the worst impulses and prejudices of his base. ---
**Author:** ![parthenokinesis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/cc9497/32.png) [@parthenokinesis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/parthenokinesis)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/35 "2008-10-14T14:10:29Z")
With all this suggestion that he used his family connections to get through the naval academy when he shouldn’t have, and to continue being a pilot long after he should have been grounded, has anyone made the arguement that he became a POW because _he deserved it_? Does the possibility exist had he been less an ass and worked harder he’d have been a better pilot and therefore not ended up getting captured? Or is that too out of bounds to even discuss? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/36 "2008-10-14T14:44:51Z")
> [@gitfiddle](#): > > For all of the talk that the entire article is a gossip peice, I would have to disagree. > > I loathe this culture of smearing opponents and pandering to the patriots, but there’s a difference between irrelevant gossip and pertinent personal history. Some of what’s in the article, indeed, is probably not terribly telling of the kind of president that McCain would be. Yet, there is a lot in there that, if true, is quite worth considering (his temper, his sense of entitlement, his view of women, etc.). Sure, I suppose we’ve had presidents who were hot-headed or unfaithful, but does the fact that they were presidents exclude us from considering it every time we choose the next president. I would agree that the anger issue might possibly figure into my decision regarding his ability to be chief executive. However, there are dozens of stories of his time in the Senate and on the campaign trail that are quite recent without learning that his temper was a factor of his life at age 4. The infidelity and Gingrich-like dumping of his first wife does not really affect his ability to be the chief executive based on the number of presidents, (and governors and generals and kings and corporate CEOs), who have clearly either been playahs or kept mistresses who performed their public duties in an exemplary, and often brilliant, manner. McCain has been in the Senate for a long time. Regardless whether he used his family influence to keep his ass out of trouble in his youth, there has been no one to save him for many years. Maybe he had a Thomas Á Beckett moment and just grew up late or maybe the stories of him pulling stings to get out of trouble are exaggerated, but they do not seem to be part of his current situation. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’m not sure I would call it gossip. After all, McCain alludes to his POW experience over and over: it seems fair to take a look at the man’s life history. Actually, either Colbert or Olbermann had a brilliant series of clips from different interviews in which McCain deliberately responded to questions about the economy, health care, international relations, and other topics by changing the subject to _I was a POW for five and a half years_. I think that it is legitimate to respond to that sort of evasive silliness by asking “What have you done for us, lately?” or even gently pointing out that he is changing the subject. I do not think that telling tales about his behavior in extreme distress from 40 years ago says anything relevant to the election. > [@parthenokinesis](#): > > With all this suggestion that he used his family connections to get through the naval academy when he shouldn’t have, and to continue being a pilot long after he should have been grounded, has anyone made the arguement that he became a POW because _he deserved it_? Does the possibility exist had he been less an ass and worked harder he’d have been a better pilot and therefore not ended up getting captured? Or is that too out of bounds to even discuss? There are a couple of people who have made the comment that he got himself shot down. The claim is that he violated Navy regs and practice by staying on the target and not jinking when he got an audible warning that a SAM had him locked in its RADAR. I would guess that since that theme is only pointed out by a few people and has not been trumpeted across various anti-McCain fora that it is not a particularly effective argument. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/37 "2008-10-14T15:04:40Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > IIRC a few prominent Republican types were discovered in long-term affairs as well, much in a tit-for-tat spirit, but the ‘scandals’ mostly fizzled out from lack of interest. YOU try imagining Henry Hyde (then-chair of the House Judiciary Committee) having sex and see how long you stay interested. :eek: > [@tomndebb](#): > > None of this will get us out of Iraq, get us into or keep us out of Iran, solve the current economic crisis, or take one step to establishing equitable, affordable medical care for the large segment of the population currently without sufficient insurance without bankrupting the nation. No, but it can help if it causes people who have bought into McCain’s myth to rethink their position and either vote for the candidate who is more likely to fix those problems or stay at home on election day. And people LOVE dirt! They will seek it out and discuss it to death because that’s what people have always done. At least with McCain he came into this election loaded down with so much dirt that he makes up for Obama’s relative, and boring, purity. Palin was just a bonus. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/38 "2008-10-14T15:08:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > There are a couple of people who have made the comment that he got himself shot down. The claim is that he violated Navy regs and practice by staying on the target and not jinking when he got an audible warning that a SAM had him locked in its RADAR. > > I would guess that since that theme is only pointed out by a few people and has not been trumpeted across various anti-McCain fora that it is not a particularly effective argument. Nah, that whole “Use the Force, Luke,” things plays right into the McCain as Maverick Mythology. Hard to get traction using it against him. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/39 "2008-10-14T15:09:14Z")
I’ve been wondering something since reading this article… would the North Vietnamese really have treated him differently based on who his father is? If we found out that one of the detainees in Gitmo was the son of a general in the Iraqi Army, would he get better treatment, or worse? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814/40 "2008-10-14T15:55:38Z")
I read the article and I liked it. It was thorough and seemed factual. At least it agreed with what I have read about him for years. His temper is well known and to have not gone into that would have made the story incomplete. He has been a spoiled rich kid for his whole life. He has gotten ahead on connections. But, a lot of politicians have done the same. It helps to have them. He is an ambitious and ruthless politician. His treatment of his ex wife has been well known for years. His serial womanizing and is no secret. So whats wrong with the article? The story really broke no new ground. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-rolling-stone-article-damning-john-mccain/467814.md?page=3)