I have no clue as to what the OP is going on about. But I would point out that who has/hasn’t served wasn’t really an issue in American politics until Republicans made a big deal in 1992 (and to a lesser extent 1996) about Clinton’s Vietnam-era avoidance of service.
If it’s somehow a moral failing to avoid serving, when capable, in wars one is opposed to, then it surely must be a greater moral failing to similarly avoid service in a war one supports.
The GOP got itself into this issue, and the GOP has no cause for complaint when it’s turned against their people.
I won’t particularly argue that point. But I will point out that while partisans of various stripes were yelling “draft-dodger” or “chickenhawk” those men won their respective elections - indicating that easy as these attacks might be to make, the American public as a whole does not care.
I have pointed that fact out numberless times as well.
In that case, why you opened this thread in the first place is totally opaque to me. You say the American people don’t care about this argument, and there doesn’t seem to be an opening to raise it in the coming campaign.
Yet it was important enough to you to raise - and to bring up the origins of the ‘chickenhawk’ argument in a misleading way, taking them only partway back. When you say “[w]hen these arguments came up in the past I tended to point out to Democrats that war heroes ran against Clinton twice, and that this didn’t seem to affect their vote at the time,” you conveniently omit those origins, and the Democrats’ motivation for venting about chickenhawks. War heroes ran against Clinton twice while their surrogates were calling Clinton a draft dodger and a traitor. It may not have affected the balance of the election, but it may well have made the election a good deal closer than it would have otherwise been, and energized and increased the numbers of those who effectively refused to accept the outcome. (Their President died a couple of days back.)
I think it’s important to understand these things, not just from the POV of who started this particular tit-for-tat, but in order to know what to expect this fall and next year. It goes without saying that we can look forward to months of attacks on Obama’s patriotism and manhood, because that’s what the wingnut attack machine does, finding different justifications every cycle. And you start an absurd thread about attacks that aren’t going to happen, that you are bored with, but that you feel a need to raise anyway.
So… what attacks can we expect to see about McCain? Pandering to special interests, of course. He’s been doing a lot of that. Not a True Republican, but that was mostly primary season. He’s too much of a hawk, that might have legs, because the war is unpopular.
And, of course, age, age, and age. Change versus Experience.
I’m saying you wouldn’t believe any left-wing sources I could have quoted, so I found some right-wingers’ writings on McCain’s views about solving things with war. I thought you might see them as kindred spirits. In a delightful surprise, you swept them aside. So, now you’re saying Bloomberg News is not a source you would trust. Hmmm, I wonder who John Mace sees as a teller of truth?
When predicting the future, I don’t see anyone as a “teller of truth”.
Pat Buchanan* is not an unbiased observer, and I don’t know what it means to be “hawkish” on China. I’ll ask again: Is McCain going to start a war with China? Is he going to take any military action against China? I highly doubt that.
*and calling him “right wing” in the sense that McCain is “right wing” is nonsense. They aren’t in the same wing.
I don’t know that he has a “military mindset”. I think that’s a rather superficial characterization of him. He’s been in Congress longer than he was in the military, so maybe he has a “Congressional mindset”.
If McCain’s military career was not such a formative and defining thing, why is it that he talks about it nearly incessantly? Why does he offer it as his foremost qualification? As much as I admire his principles when he refused early release, how does being shot down and subsequently mistreated add geopolitical credentials?
As I’ve said before, I get the feeling that McCain is running to be Commander in Chief rather than running for President.
“Incessantly” is a pretty vague term. I’m not sure that he talks about his military career more than he talks about his Congressional experience. But if you’ve got proof, I’m open to hearing it. Sure, he talks about it a lot… but more than, say, Kerry did?
Does he?
I’m sure he considers that an important aspect of the job, but I can’t say that I’ve even seen him say or imply that it’s the most important thing.
