Critique the Rolling Stone article damning John McCain

[Burton]

It seemed for the most part pretty accurate to me. I’d never heard the anecdotes about his extreme temper and rude remarks before. They don’t seem out of character either. Has McCain responded to the allegations?

[Tom_Scud]

@Ethilrist

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?

Not a remotely analogous situation. Especially at the time McCain was captured, America was still a very dangerous opponent to the North Vietnamese, and one that would continue to be a world power regardless of how that specific war went. America hasn’t been in an analogous situation since the War of 1812, during which they would have regarded the capture of a scion of the Admiralty as a major coup.

[rivulus]

@The_Second_Stone

Most of the stuff in the RS article had been around for years, and it is interesting to have it all in one place. But I knew it already, and I dislike McCain for his treatment of his first wife and his chumming up to Bush after Bush defamed McCain’s family in 2000. All the rest I can give him a pass on, even Keating 5, which McCain himself thinks dishonored him. There I think that he was just a huge fool. Perhaps that disqualifies him, but it pales in comparison to the treatment of his family. McCain identified his father to the North Vietnamese so he could get life saving treatment? So what. He didn’t break ranks with his fellow prisoners other than possibly talking under torture. So what.

Here is the “so what” as far as I am concerned (speaking as someone who might have considered voting for McCain, until I learned more about him):

1. McCain tells the POW story as a part of his campaign platform. The thought process, I believe, is supposed to go this way: “I was a POW… [insert story here]… Therefore, under difficult conditions, I did what was right… Therefore, I am a man of great moral fortitude… And you can generalize from this example to assume that when I am president you can count on me to do the Right Thing even when circumstances are difficult.”

2. McCain labels himself as a political maverick. The thought process, I believe, is supposed to go this way: “I am a maverick in politics… [insert examples here or don’t even bother and just repeat the maverick line over and over]… Therefore, under politically difficult conditions, I did what was right… Therefore, I am a politician of great moral fortitude… And you can generalize from these examples [or repetitions of maverick] to assume that when I am president you can count on me to do the Right Thing even when circumstances are politically difficult.”

The man invites, no, challenges us to look at his record and see a man of moral fortitude, politically and otherwise.

OK, so we do what he says. We look. And we find these examples. That’s the “so what.” They don’t add up to what he’s claiming and they don’t exactly predict him doing the mavericky Right Thing if he becomes president.

[Clu-Me-In]

@rivulus

Here is the “so what” as far as I am concerned (speaking as someone who might have considered voting for McCain, until I learned more about him):

1. McCain tells the POW story as a part of his campaign platform. The thought process, I believe, is supposed to go this way: “I was a POW… [insert story here]… Therefore, under difficult conditions, I did what was right… Therefore, I am a man of great moral fortitude… And you can generalize from this example to assume that when I am president you can count on me to do the Right Thing even when circumstances are difficult.”

2. McCain labels himself as a political maverick. The thought process, I believe, is supposed to go this way: “I am a maverick in politics… [insert examples here or don’t even bother and just repeat the maverick line over and over]… Therefore, under politically difficult conditions, I did what was right… Therefore, I am a politician of great moral fortitude… And you can generalize from these examples [or repetitions of maverick] to assume that when I am president you can count on me to do the Right Thing even when circumstances are politically difficult.”

The man invites, no, challenges us to look at his record and see a man of moral fortitude, politically and otherwise.

OK, so we do what he says. We look. And we find these examples. That’s the “so what.” They don’t add up to what he’s claiming and they don’t exactly predict him doing the mavericky Right Thing if he becomes president.

What I heard of John McCain at first was that he was a war hero and a standout amongst men. He did not run with the herd. Good enough for me.

The next time I heard about him, it was about the mixup that cost the taxpayers a few Billions in the S&L debacle. He was being reprimanded along with a few other politicians. To me they were just your regular run of the mill politician and I figured they’d just disappear into the woodwork and leave us alone, but there was John McCain again bellying up to the trough to feed some more despite having taken us for a ride with his buddy Keating.

When he ran for President against “W” I was esctatic that “W” spanked him cos by then I had started reading up on him and could not believe what I was reading. A man with no character or integrity out on the stump asking folks to ignore who he is and make him President. The gall of the man.

Now, here he is again lying and using Sarah Palin to get his way with the American people. I detest Sarah Palin, but if it was between him and Sarah “Thanks but, no thanks” Palin, I’d vote for Sarah every time to be President.

[sqweels]

It worth noting that many of McCain’s supporters had previously embraced that mantra of “character counts”, so on one level the hypocrisy of that whole political faction is on trial.

[Measure_for_Measure]

FTR, I have to agree with tomndebb’s position, narrowly. If you want to evaluate a 72 year old candidate, you should emphasize the last 36 years of his life over the first 36 years. And the content, honesty and credibility of his policy claims as well as the quality of his decision making are most relevant of all.

Still for those swayed by McCain’s (or Obama’s) life story, these sorts of hatchet jobs may act as a corrective, provided they are factual. All the same, I’d give little weight to such a one-sided piece, at least without circumspection.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Measure_for_Measure

FTR, I have to agree with tomndebb’s position, narrowly. If you want to evaluate a 72 year old candidate, you should emphasize the last 36 years of his life over the first 36 years.

So should he, is the point. If he bases his campaign on things he did when he was young , and they’re not all just like he says they were, why shouldn’t we set the record straight? What, he gets to invent stuff about his past and we just get to say, “Gosh, that doesn;t seem right–I wish it were ethical to go all truthy on him”?