cosmodan (posting 31)
Although elucidator’s post was not directed to that posting, he seems to have summarized the traits of the new McCain quite well:
elucidator
Sadly, he probably still is the same guy as he was in 2000 - but we’ll never see it. McCain has learned in order to be President, you don’t criticize the flag of a “country” that hasn’t existed since 1865. 
(Plus all the other issues that elucidator raised).
Strange how dems should stay away from McCains service when the repubs swiftboated him in the 2000 election. They claimed he broke, that he was not hurt as bad as he says,that he turned on his fellow prisoners and that he suffered mental problems that made him unsuitable for president. That is what Rove and his merry band did. They are same people that are now paid to defend him now.
Well, let’s look at this a little bit now:
Scalia was confirmed with a 98-0 vote. Now, would you consider all those Democrats voting for his nomination to be traitors to the pro-choice cause?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with only 3 dissenting votes. John McCain is in far more company voting for her than against her - even within his own caucus.
You should be careful about judging the validity of someone’s pro-choice or pro-life beliefs on the basis of voting for judicial confirmations - often for judges nominated by the president of another party, and with the belief (still nominally held to by both sides) that judges shouldn’t prejudge cases in their confirmation hearings.
People had questioned his military record and his role after he left WAY before he ran for President. That’s simply a fact. Sorry. His candidacy, and his "reporting for duty, brought it to the fore. And you can call them “lies” all you want. Doesn’t make them so, though.
Correction: they were willing to critically examine his record.
That’s right . That’s the difference.
Agreed.
I’d agree that I’ve heard too much about it. The story is out there, people know it. I find it unseemly to keep harping on it.
By the way, did you ever see my response to your last long post to me? I sent it on the over the weekend that the board was “improved”. I had even tried to PM it to you, but it was too long.
I have very high standards for military service. I won’t vote for a candidate unless he was killed in battle.
Shirley wasn’t saying that s/he personally believes that voting to confirm Ginsburg means that McCain is not sufficiently anti-choice. S/he’s saying that to the average rabid right-wing anti-choicer the vote to confirm Ginsburg could be seen as a betrayal of his anti-choice ideals.
You’re right, my calling them lies doesn’t make them lies. The definition of lies makes them lies. The claims of the swift boat crowd were found to be non factual for the most part.
I’d agree that I think the Kerry campaign tried to make too much of his service, but that’s exactly what makes the masses at the RNC hypocrites. They cheered McCain’s story and the implication that it will make him a great president repeatedly.
Like they critically examined and criticized McCain in 2000? Should the democrats use Rove’s tactics from the 2000 campaign against McCain. He was broken in Hanoi! He tried to kill himself. He’s mentally unstable.
I just don’t agree. I’m not interested in taking a microscope to McCain’s record and it isn’t about a comparison between him and Kerry. They lied and misrepresented Kerry’s service and the GOP masses embraced the lies to elect Bush who avoided service. Not too many are bragging about that anymore.
No it isn’t. The difference is shitting all over Kerry’s very real service {however imperfect} and eagerly doing so, and then going Gah gah over JM’s and acting as if it’s oh so relevant 40 years later. It’s hypocrisy plain and simple.
No I didn’t. Can you post it again?
So, at least some of them were not lies, then?
This brings up an important point. IMO, the degree that ANY previous job can prepare one for the Presidency is questionable, including military service. The only value I see in Joh McCain’s story is his time as a POW. Most of us, thank heavens, will never have our character tested in such a crucible. But he did. And he handled himself the way I wish I would handle myself. I’d guess it’s the same for you. So, we have a fairly unique situation in which a candidate’s character was direly tested. At the very least, I think you’d have to agree that Kerry, to his great fortune, never found himself in a similar situation. So, one cannot come to a similar conclusion about him. That’s not to say ANYTHING negative about him at all. I’d say the same about myself and most people. But then when you do look at the questionable way he handled himself (the PHs, etc.)‚ he doesn’t help himself. This is not to say that his entire service was without merit. Only that, in my estimation, that merit ids overshadowed by conduct that I would not characterize as honorable. Most people who knew him in Vietnam seem to have come to the same conclusion.
They’re free to try. But it would backfire. That’s why they’re not doing it. Because only a few loons would buy into it.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about what are lies when it comes to Kerry. Just for the record, I am no fan of Bush, and have never voted for the man.
It’s only hypocrisy if you equate JM’s service with JK’s. As I pointed out, I don’t think you can do that. I actually think the comparison is laughable. One guy was tortured daily for five years and elected to stay when given the chance to leave. The other guy collected three scratches and hightailed it out of there in three months. Unless you believe that his commanding officers wanted him out. Either way, nothing to brag about.
No, I don’t keep copies of my posts. And it was a rather long one, as I tried to take the same care in responding as you did. Do you think perhaps there’s a way to retrieve it that I’m unaware of. Come to think of it, I have Time Machine on my Mac, there’s a slight chance that it might reside someplace if the save was done just at the right time—I think.
So you think it’s a good thing that he cracked under torture and gave away strategic military information, and you hope that should you find yourself in the same situation that you too would crack and give away strategic military information.
right, Kerry actually was in Vietnam. From my reading enough of them serious malicious lies to discount their opinions entirely. The question of whether service is relevant to a candidate is a reasonable. To dissect the details of someone’s service for the specific purpose of finding fault, and then lying about it to discredit their service, is reprehensible. It was used against McCain in 2000 and then against Kerry in 2004. That type of dishonest malicious politics needs to be soundly rejected and called the lying bullshit it is.
Do you have a cite for that last sentence? My reading indicates otherwise. from wikki
I’m not interested in any debate about what is more impressive or more honorable. McCain’s honorable actions of 40 years ago have little relevancy to the current campaign and are not the point of this thread.
It seems to me that the republicans bought into it in 2000 when Bush beat McCain for the republican nomination. There’s no point in questioning his service of 40 years ago because it simply isn’t all that relevant. His more recent behavior is. My specific point in this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of the cheering masses at the RNC who eagerly swallowed the lies about Kerry’s service 4 years ago. Is that honorable behavior?
I knew that from a previous thread and am glad to hear it. I can believe that Kerry received PHs for very minor injuries. How dishonorable is that? From what I’ve read that was fairly common practice back then and also fairly irrelevant. Do you agree that the SBVT folks told some fairly significant lies and purposely misrepresented the facts? You’ll notice that when one of that group wrote a book about Obama this election it was pounced on and discredited as a pack of lies right away.
Nothing to brag about? Certainly not as impressive as McCain’s but risking your life in combat in service to your country is not something I’ve done, so I’m not ready to crap on someone who did it.
There’s a huge difference in my book between making the observation that McCain’s military record is more impressive than Kerry’s and embracing lies about JKs record. That’s the hypocrisy to me. In this election his service is being held up as an indicator of who’s more worthy. 4 years ago these same people were willing to shit on someone who risked his life for country and vote for someone who did not. Apparently service becomes relevant or irrelevant depending on who’s team you’re on.
I’d be interested in reading it or just a summary of it.
Except when he was in Cambodia.
Kerry has been attacked on his service since his appearance in the Senate when he spread his lies in an attempt to stop the war. John O’Neill went after him then, just in a desire to counter the lies and set the record straight. because of that his service got put under a microscope, which turned out to not be a good thing for Kerry.
I did not say “his crew”. I was to the larger pool of people who knew him—those on other boats alongside him, superiors, etc. The cite offered below will give some of those details.
I said that it is my opinion that the only value of looking at it is that McCain’s unique case gives us an insight into the man’s character.
Again, if you believe they’re lies, no. If you believe O’Neill and team, than yes. I believe O’Neill’s version.
It seems to be more common from interviews I’ve heard and read that most guys didn’t put in for scratches. Now, while Kerry might have been technically within his rights to do so, that does not equate to “honorable” behavior. One can act within the bounds of a rule book and still act dishonorably. lawyer defend this type of behavior in society all the time.
No. Did they get some things wrong? Probably. But from Unfit for Command I get the impression that they 1) truly believe in their position on Kerry, 2) have facts to back it up, and 3) tried to get the story right. To that last point there is a new book. An interesting chapter to it can be found http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com/docs/CH10.pdf
That’s my default, too. Barring any other information I think anyone who puts himself in harm’s way deserves that consideration. That doesn’t mean that their decision to go into battle absolves them of misdeeds or dishonorable behavior once they’re there.
But you are comparing them and attempt to equate them to a degree. They both served. They both went into battle. That’s where the comparison ends. And that’s where the testing of the men begins. And they both acquitted themselves very differently. John McCain gave us a story that sparks awe and brings forth respect. Kerry’s conduct not so much. One can hardly argue with a straight face that collecting PHs for scratches that required band aids when other soldiers were happy with just the band aid and setting a land speed record for getting in and out of a combat zone is behavior to be looked up to. I don’t see this as hypocrisy you see at all. I see it as apples and oranges, with a defense akin to “they’re both round!”.
I’ll try to find the time to go back and recreate some semblance of it.
I completely agree, and both sides do it.
John Kerry was mentioning his Vietnam War Experience, I presume, in order to contrast his service to Bush II. (In other words, making a comparison of Kerry’s tour of duty in a combat zone to Bush’s Air National Guard service.) In that case, being a combat veteran was a stronger “qualifier” for President than one who was not deployed.
A mere four years later, I am being told that 40 year old POW experience shouldn’t mean squat.
Heh.
I am disappointed in how McCain seems to be a different man (compared to his circa 2000 personna) in order to win the nomination of his party.
Does this mean he is a “flip-flopper”, or someone who realises that they may need to “reach across the aisle” to reach a goal? Both? Heh…
I am guessing that his “change” message during the Republican Convention may signal a movement back to the (for him) left, back to his 2000 personna. We’ll see.
And you know he spread lies how exactly? IMHO those who worked to stop the travesty of VietNam and saved American lives by bringing it to a close deserve our thanks rather than ridicule. I haven’t done any in depth study of Kerry’s testimony and what might have been lies. Have you? Is there any reason to believe O’Neil over Kerry and his supporters.
That link didn’t work. I’d likely not accept another book by the same folks as a reliable source without independent review and verification. According to that same Wikki article some of the people from SBVT who criticized him were praising his service before the election. The fact that *all * of his crew, the ones actually there during the events, praise him and call the attacks bullshit and those more loosely associated with his service seem to change their stories and opinions , doesn’t give me much faith in their credibility.
Or what his character was 40 years ago concerning one aspect. When he came home and cheated on his wife, that’s another aspect of his character isn’t it?
Without any solid reason to IMO, but that’s your choice.
I’ll admit ignorance on that. I just find the " he bled for his country and risked his life, but not enough" a pretty weak argument. Your argument that all he received was scratches for all three purple hearts is completely unsubstantiated. Did he return to rescue a comrade in the water at the risk of his own life?
As I said, the link doesn’t work. When people can easily do research and show them to be factually incorrect I have a hard time thinking they tried to get it right. An honest statement would be, “Here’s my opinion but I wasn’t there” Instead they present their opinions as factual.
Or dishonorable behavior years later?
Again, the comparison wasn’t the details of service but the GOP members huge discrepancy inb how they reacted to service from one campaign to another.