Remind me, again - what are the highest elected offices held by Kerry, Gore, and Bob Dole?
And what were the noteworthy achievements of George H.W. Bush’s second presidential term?
I think we’re arguing two totally separate things - what is right and good and decent and what voters really care about. This being a democracy, we’re stuck with the latter most of the time.
One of the unique things about war is that the only way to gain experience is to participate. There were thousands of pilots shot down over North Vietnam, and very few of them were “experienced”. They were sent over, shown a plane, and told to go at it. Even some of the “experienced” pilots, notably a man named Robbie Risner (Korean War ace, on the cover of Time Magazine, longtime POW) were shot down during missions over North Vietnam. Since they had “experience”, are they to maligned for incompetence?
Following through on your bomb run is something that pilots do. That’s the job- hit the target. He tried to do his job and paid a terrible price for it. That is hardly something that deserves the implication that he was an incompetent pilot. That meme needs to go away, because it’s simply not true.
Gore claimed to have been in a combat zone, ducking gunfire. A number of people allegedly designed to accompany him at various times indicate that he was never in frontline areas and it is highly unlikely he ever heard gunfire except on a training range. This is, of course, about the least of Gore’s self-aggrandizement, though he is hardly alone in puffing up his c.v. to appeal to the masses.
The ideal candidate would be a war hero movie star who selflessly promotes some significant but non-controversial charity, doesn’t cheat on his wife, has three golden-haired children, is equally comfortable playing golf or bowling with the Teamsters, never takes a dime from special interests, and is capable of functioning on thirty minutes of sleep a day. So, basically a combination of Audie Murphy, Robert Redford, and Paul Newman, with just a touch of Steve McQueen or Sterling Hayden to give him that maverick edge.
Soon, we’ll be able to genetically engineer this and grow it to adulthood in accelerated in vitro conditions and then implant the skills and experience by direct neural interface, and then we can be shed of the whole tiresome business of campaigning, elections, and indeed, democracy.
Stranger
Even if it was true, I think many people would decide that being punished for it by the North Vietnamese might be plenty enough - perhaps we don’t need to pile on.
The reason it is different is that the Republicans have been repeating over and over that it’s important that the president have lots and lots of “experience.” Granted, they have made that argument about the president, not the VP, but I think it’s relevant to the VP, especially with a 72 year old nominee with a history of cancer. Therefore, the picking of Sarah Palin, and the subsequent worshiping of the ground she walks on by the prostrate masses, is hypocritical. If Kerry had gone on and on and on about how electing the person with the most experience was hugely important, then his pick of Edwards would have been more questionable.
So if you want to make the point that the Republicans are being held to a standard that doesn’t exist, I reply that the standard does exist, because the Republicans have made it the standard. If your argument is based solely upon the difference between making the claim for a president, and making the same claim for the VP, then I will not argue with that, because it is technically correct, although it seems a bit nit-picky to me considering how close the VP is to becoming president, especially in McCain’s case, and I always thought the most important factor in selecting a VP was to make sure things would be OK if the worst ever happened.
First of all, the Republicans can’t change a standard that has been established through history. Second of all, the difference between Pres and VP may be small in your perception, but history tells us that typically the two positions are NOT held to the same standard in terms of experience.
But my point isn’t necessarily to argue this particular issue, since it’s been gone around and around in so many other threads, but more to point out when and why it’s legitimate to make a “you too” argument.
Cuts both ways, though, doesn’t it. Because I don’t think anyone can argue with a straight face that Joe Biden is an agent of change.
Boy Howdy.
Imagine an alternate universe where McCain was horrified at the idea of bombing innocent people into a pile of pink bits and was against the whole war. Instead of being drafted he stood up and said he wouldn’t be a part of it. He was instead jailed for five years. Decades later supporters would point to this act of sacrifice and call him a hero for putting his strong anti-war view above his personal comfort.
Haha! Good one, right?
She’s the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard, but that’s not a military position and does not qualify anyone’s resume for a tick-mark of “military.”
The commander of the Alaska National Guard is a two-star general: Major General Craig E. Campbell.
By McCain’s own admission, he stayed on run rather than follow procedure and evade. This resulted in the loss of a multimillion dollar aircraft, a trained pilot, and a (modest) security compromise. I don’t mean to imply that he was incompetent as a pilot (although he was very clearly inexperienced in comparison to more seasoned pilots) but even by his story he was headstrong and disregarded standard procedure, and for an end result that was hardly worth the cost, both personal and to his service, i.e. a bad decision. And this is being promoted as his superior experience in fighting wars?
Personally I think this has very little bearing one way or another regarding his effectiveness as a potential chief executive; I would much rather hear about his experience and impressions from working on the Armed Services Committee rather than having him trot out again as a show pony war hero. But when he or his boosters toss this out as such an example he’s opening himself up to criticism or a “pile on”. I’d have far more respect for him if he’d emulate Coriolanus and insist on speaking about issues rather than riding the War Hero Express.
Stranger
If the American public is savvy enough I wonder why both parties tend to use this when the opportunity arises. It’s an emotional appeal and supposedly some indicator of character. I basically agree with you that our history of presidents shows it’s not that important a gauge,but surely the republicans are relying on it pretty heavily in this election. McCain’s a war hero who sacrificed for his country and Obama has radical friends. I’ve heard too many people repeat that to think they’re all that savvy. Party loyalty makes us all justify too much.
apart from that , it’s still not the point of this thread. How military records affect voting is irrelevant to the hypocrisy I pointed out.
McCain is not a war hero. He was nearly half a century ago. He has moved on hasn’t he. ? Or Is that all he will ever be. ?
I judge him on what he does now and he lies about his relationships with lobbyists. He is deeply embedded with lobbyists in his campaign.
They want us to ignore Keating 5 because it was so long ago. His prisoner time was much farther back than that. Too selective for me.
What about his serial dating and carousing when he was married? Is that too long ago. But it does go to character. The biggest threat to marriage is not gay marriage but divorce. The repubs pile them up pretty good. Go through the list of repub contenders. They show little respect for marriage vows while chastising everybody else.
The repubs swiftboated McCains military service when Bush was running against him. it was shameful. That is who they are. Rove and his peeps are still in charge.
Cutting through the usual crap I see mention of the Keating Five. If you actually trouble yourself to do any sort of research you’ll find that McCain and Glenn should not have been included in that group. McCain played it straight in that investigation, and ultimately he got a light slap on the wrist, criticized for “poor judgment” only because the Senate Ethics Committee had to say something after discovering that they weren’t involved.
So yeah, you can ignore the Keating Five. There’s nothing noteworthy about it except that he didn’t do anything wrong.
If you want to attack his character about his divorce, have at it. That can’t be all you have on him, is it?
Which McCain? The principled maverick, or the Pubbie sock-puppet? The one who firmly opposed the Bush Christmas party for the rich, or the one who wants to extend it? The pro-choice McCain, or the stern protector of embryos? The rough-handed man of the people, or the pampered rich guy? The guy who stood up to the televangelist scum, or the guy genuflecting and smooching their lower cheeks?
Can you be more specific?
Funny - I can’t see where McCain has ever been pro-choice. Do you have a cite that he ever was?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199909/ai_n8855062
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/mccain082499.htm
More? Google.
He voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg. To any “respectable,” black-and-white, good-vs.-evil, anti-baby-holocaust Republican, that should be tantamount to high treason.
Bullshit he was the most culpable. he used the guys jet and vacationed with him. He was in Keating’s pocket long before he tried to return the favor. None of the 5 were deeper than McCain. He just bailed a little quicker.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five/1 A little article about McCain the maverick as he grafted along.