Done. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_mccain_crash_five_planes_did_he.html
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
Which is also the definition of playing politics.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
YOU try imagining Henry Hyde (then-chair of the House Judiciary Committee) having sex and see how long you stay interested. :eek:
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.
Nah, that whole “Use the Force, Luke,” things plays right into the McCain as Maverick Mythology. Hard to get traction using it against him.
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?
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.