You apparently missed the point of the thread. I wasn’t accusing McCain of being a hypocrite in this particular case. You see in the OP my reference to “these same republicans”
The GOP is repeatedly trotting out McCain’s admittedly impressive and courageous military record to the cheers of the crowd. He’s a hero, he’s sacrificed for America, that proves his great character and how much he loves his country.
8 years ago these same folks rejected him over Bush and a mere 4 years ago they eagerly shit on and swallowed the lies about another decorated Vet’s record in order to elect Bush.
There’s a huge difference between that and your Kerry quotes. I hope you can see it.
Did you think the OP was about McCain? It isn’t. It’s about the cheering pubbies in the seats.
I have great conservative friends and I respect their feelings and opinions even when I don’t agree. I know partisanship can lead us all into some hypocrisy if we’re not careful. This was just something that really pissed me off and I needed to vent.
cosmodan
I totally agree with you. What really pissed me off was McCain’s presidential bid back in 2000 in which I expected him to get the Republican nomination.
Well by gosh you say negative things about the confederate flag and see where it gets you? I couldn’t believe that dumbfuck “Dubya” Bush with his avoidance of the Vietnam War as compared to John McCain’s service, actually got the nomination and the Presidency. :mad:
I guess “Dubya” Bush knew how to talk about the “real” issues - don’t defame the confederate flag, make certain to say “NOOK-YOU-LAR”, be quick to assert that the jury is still out on evolution, and make sure “queers” can’t get married. :mad:
Following Palin’s admission that she had not paid much attention to the situation in Iraq, I saw some Republican spin doctors try to change the subject by making a big deal that her state is “closest to Russia” and that she was “Commander of the National Guard.” I have then seen several respones from the Democrat spin doctors noting that she has not actually “commanded” the ANG to do anything aside from some routine search and rescue or injured person transportation roles that really were not authorized at the level of the governor.
I have not yet seen Obama or Biden actually participate in those claims and counterclaims.
You mean, because he got blown out of the sky for insisting on flying a mission he wasn’t experienced for and failed to follow evasive procedures?
Audie Murphy may have been a hero who parlayed his honor into a successful movie career; John McCain, while certainly a stand-up guy during his internment by the NVA, has pretty much expended is credibility by also standing up for torture, evasions, and blatant lies by the current administration.
Color me less than impressed with McCain’s “heroism” in the long view of things.
I was speaking only of his military record, specifically his years as a POW. The idea that a 40 year old experience tells us a lot about his character and positions today in a presidential election is simply not true. That’s another reason I’m sick of them bringing it up over and over. Someone, please ask how relevant it really is , over and over as well.
What was not the case. That republicans went out of their way to shit on and lie about Kerry’s record? That those who supported Bush lapped up the lies for the most part and were perfectly willing to crap on his record?
McCain’s heroism and service of *40 years ago * is not in question. Whether that experience tells us much about his character now after 20+ years in Washington certainly is and certainly should be. I’d like to see some people asking those questions as often as the GOP and McCain himself keeps bringing up POW POW. and by the way POW.
I think the heroism reputation comes mostly from the POW years. He could have used his connections and come home anytime, and instead chose to stay and suffer with his fellow soldiers.
Well, lots of us were saying that Kerry’s heroism had little to do with his character and positions today. And keep in mind that I was taking the claims of the Swift Boaters individually - I didn’t support those guys across the board.
Similarly, Bill Clinton beat Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey pretty handily in the 1992 primaries, and he beat Bush and Dole in general elections. Those men were both decorated WWII veterans.
My first post was meant to illustrate that candidates will tend to run on their strengths and will try to mitigate their weaknesses - while somehow neutralizing the strength of an opponent. There is considerable evidence, too, that the American public is savvy enough to separate a war record from other issues.
If anyone can find proof otherwise, I’d love to see it - but frankly, this should be plain as day to anyone.
Read his own autobiography, Faith of My Fathers. I don’t own a copy to cite from, but I clearly recall him retelling his fateful bomb run in which the threat receiver on his Skyhawk alerted him and instead of following procedure by jinking out and returning to line up for another run, he continues on his track, drops his bomb load, and then takes an SA-2 up the pipe. This is hardly atypical, of course; the VA-163 ‘Saints’ squadron had a reputation for ballsy behavior to the point of stupidity (and the losses to show for it), and McCain immediately volunteered for high risk missions even though he lacked experience.
One can certainly credit McCain with being an exemplary officer while in internment (despite ultimately giving away information–at that point, none of it could have been very critical) and standing by his fellow comrades in arms, but this doesn’t credit toward his ability to administrate a war or foreign policy. Not only is the hero angle being oversold, it’s even pretty much irrelevant. If McCain wants to taut his foreign policy experience–which is, in fact, not that modest and certainly more than Obama can claim–then he should do so. Claiming that being shot down over Vietnam makes McCain qualified to run a war is just monkey-puppetting, and as the o.p. points out, hypocritical in the context of previous support for the current CinC given his ‘record’.
But it’s hardly atypical for candidates of any political stripe to exaggerate or rely upon questionable claims of their wartime experiences as somehow enhancing capability as the chief executive. Al Gore was a prime example of this on the opposite side of the fence.
Well, in the case of Gore his service was of a fairly modest (though honorable) type. That sort of behavior would have been the right way to go.
I should point out that Bush himself never made much of his own military experience as any kind of qualification for anything. Of course, that didn’t keep his opponents from going after it anyway.
Again, fat lot of good that did. The American people don’t care. They just don’t. And I think we have to look at why. Maybe they are signaling with their lack of concern about this sort of thing exactly where there concerns are.
Appropos to that, McCain missed an opportunity at the convention be having speaker after speaker ram home the story of his service. He should have had Fred Thompson alone do that - that worked well. Giuliani should have delivered largely the speech he gave. Other speakers should have focused almost exclusively on policy.
You’re not still in denial about Bush using family connections to jump to the head of the line for the Texas Air National Guard and later shirking his duties after transferring to Alabama, are you?
Try reading the “Legitimate Uses” section of your Wikipedia cite:
If you have accepted a certain behavior on the part of one party, then your argument against that behavior by a second party can logically be called into question. At the very least, you have to explain why the two situations are different.
Take the first version above, and re-word it in terms of the Sarah Palin has no experience argument:
“Democrats say that selecting a VP with little experience is wrong under all circumstances, but they supported the selection of John Edwards for VP; they are either being inconsistent, or they believe that under some circumstances selecting a VP with little experience is justified.”
What people are trying to ask you is…in what circumstances is it justified? Why was it justified in one case, but not the other? Or was it wrong then, too?
Another point, which I made in a GD thread but that I don’t think you responded to, is that some are trying to make the point that the Republicans are perhaps being held up to a standard that doesn’t exist. If example after example can be given of VPs who didn’t have much experience, and even Presidents who didn’t have much experience, then why is the standard being changed now, with this candidate?
No - I think you’re in denial that even after all of those allegations came out over two presidential election cycles, voters elected him anyway.
I said before, I would prefer that Bush were a war hero, but that preference isn’t going to make me vote for a liberal Democrat. From my perspective, that would be nuts. And for a liberal Democrat, it would be similarly nuts to reject Clinton and vote for Bush Sr. or Dole.
Do you think Clinton’s actions to avoid the draft were totally above board? Did that affect your vote for him in the 1990s, assuming you voted in those elections?
I think most people just decided that after so many years it didn’t matter - on both sides. And while it may provide an interesting topic of discussion here, barring a game changer like desertion, voters don’t care.
No, he didn’t, and I know why. And so do you, since its been pointed out to you, but you may have forgotten. Being a bit older than yourself, the draft is part of my memory. (Turned 18 and a half in '66). The War hadn’t even gotten into full-on shitstorm mode, and young guys were already scrambling. You could join the Air Force, but they wanted a four year committment. The Coast Guard was only taking a meagre few, and those had to be graduates of a four year college to enlist at the lowest level!
The 2-S deferement for college students was the plum pudding, with a couple wrinkles: if your local draft board got wind that you were involved with anti-war protest, they might decide you weren’t such a dedicated student, after all. And, of course, you flunk out, you ship out. Put a rather keen edge to mid-term anxiety.
The National Guard? You kidding? No way, no chance, no how did the average shmuck get into the National Guard after the shit got rolling, unless…
Unless. You know the rest, don’t you? Shirley, you remember? How his name mysteriously drifted to the top of the list? How he scraped by with an absolute minimum score for aptitude? So, no, he didn’t brag much about how he bravely protected the skies above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft.
You remember all this, right, Moto? We discussed it at length, you and I.