This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2philosojerk
I love it, thanks Native.
3modalursine
Yes! More like that! Yeehah!.
I like the line "Good luck with that in November". Only trouble is, I remember the Goldwater campaign. LBJ had the best lines. Goldwater's a lunatic. Elect that guy and who knows what sort of dangerous and irresponsible warmongering he'ld be up to. Funny thing, and the joke was on us, that LBJ was planning to escalate the war in SE Asia like gangbusters.
When the memoirs came out it turned out he didnt even have the excuse of needing to change his mind based on new info learned when he was president, or based on new facts on the ground. Nope! He was planning to escalate all along but he (rightly) calculated that we wouldnt elect him if he said that, so he told us somehting else and did what he wanted when he got elected.
That wont happen with The next president,will it? (Grump!)
I like the line "Good luck with that in November". Only trouble is, I remember the Goldwater campaign. LBJ had the best lines. Goldwater's a lunatic. Elect that guy and who knows what sort of dangerous and irresponsible warmongering he'ld be up to. Funny thing, and the joke was on us, that LBJ was planning to escalate the war in SE Asia like gangbusters.
When the memoirs came out it turned out he didnt even have the excuse of needing to change his mind based on new info learned when he was president, or based on new facts on the ground. Nope! He was planning to escalate all along but he (rightly) calculated that we wouldnt elect him if he said that, so he told us somehting else and did what he wanted when he got elected.
That wont happen with The next president,will it? (Grump!)
4codyed
Of course not. We have one candidate that says we can expect to be in Iraq for 100 years if necessary and another that can give us hope we can believe in, or something like that.
6BGP
>5 enevada: pixie dust coupled with a working coalition of progressive Democrats and moderate Republicans...
7Arctic-Stranger
As opposed to brow-beaten and braindead republicans and weak-at-the-knees bleeding heart democrats.
I think we may need an extra dose of that pixie dust.
I think we may need an extra dose of that pixie dust.
9BGP
>7 Arctic-Stranger: No, no, no... The bleeding hearts are OK in my book, and I have no need to characterize the Republicans as "brow-beaten and braindead." That said, there are some neoliberal, Liberal Hawkish, and Dixiecratic Democrats who cannot be relied on, and the vast majority of the Republican legislative body will never work consistently with a Democratic congress.
10Arctic-Stranger
You'll have to excuse me. I come from Alaska, and Ted Stevens in one of my senators.
The other one I actually like a lot. She is smart, is willing to make up her own mind on things. I am speaking of Sen. Lisa Murkowski. If more Republicans were like her, I might be one.
The other one I actually like a lot. She is smart, is willing to make up her own mind on things. I am speaking of Sen. Lisa Murkowski. If more Republicans were like her, I might be one.
11philosojerk
This thread turned into fun, but I thought I'd point out that McCain caved on torture today, voting against a bill that would ban waterboarding and hold DoS to the same standards upheld by the Army Field Manual.
Nice to see a guy who really sticks to his principles in the face of... conservative pressure?
Nice to see a guy who really sticks to his principles in the face of... conservative pressure?
12BGP
>10 Arctic-Stranger: Oh, yes... Between Stevens and a number of your state representatives, I fully understand that your characterizations are quite polite!
13BGP
>11 philosojerk: Do as I say, not as I vote...
14Arctic-Stranger
Most of the state representives who are not in jail are fairly decent people.
Of course our congressman is a national disgrace. Rep. Don Young has a mouth that is stuck in overdrive and a brain that is constantly in idle. (He once addressed a group of high schoolers...a large group of high schoolers, and when asked about gay marriage said he didnt see why a group of b*tt f*ckers needed to get married. He didnt use asterisks of course.)
Of course our congressman is a national disgrace. Rep. Don Young has a mouth that is stuck in overdrive and a brain that is constantly in idle. (He once addressed a group of high schoolers...a large group of high schoolers, and when asked about gay marriage said he didnt see why a group of b*tt f*ckers needed to get married. He didnt use asterisks of course.)
15BGP
LOL
I understand that it's beautiful up there, but, between the horse-sized mosquitoes and the public representatives... I can't help but wonder how you keep yourself from moving a little east and south into saner territory.
I understand that it's beautiful up there, but, between the horse-sized mosquitoes and the public representatives... I can't help but wonder how you keep yourself from moving a little east and south into saner territory.
16Arctic-Stranger
Don't tell anyone, but I am planning on taking over the place. Shhhh. Mums the word.
17NativeRoses
Mostly from else-lt:
McCain recently voted against a bill that would have banned waterboarding. It passed 51-45, so of course Bush is going to veto it, but that makes it worse, because the only reason McCain can have for casting that vote is to appeal to the pro-torture Republicans he so desperately needs to win. The one and only good thing about McCain as president, who has been described as "a borderline doddering Mr Magoo," is that at least we would know he's anti-torture. His only chance will be if the Democrats nominate HRC ~ not a gimme ~ and then he's got to get the base on his side, which will involve tacking to the right so hard that he may alienate the independents he needs.
Recently, Virginia's primary had 2x the Democratic voters as GOP voters. If VA's in play, the GOP's in deep doo-doo. Similar situation in red red red state Alabama. Similar in my own state, Georgia.
McCain recently voted against a bill that would have banned waterboarding. It passed 51-45, so of course Bush is going to veto it, but that makes it worse, because the only reason McCain can have for casting that vote is to appeal to the pro-torture Republicans he so desperately needs to win. The one and only good thing about McCain as president, who has been described as "a borderline doddering Mr Magoo," is that at least we would know he's anti-torture. His only chance will be if the Democrats nominate HRC ~ not a gimme ~ and then he's got to get the base on his side, which will involve tacking to the right so hard that he may alienate the independents he needs.
Recently, Virginia's primary had 2x the Democratic voters as GOP voters. If VA's in play, the GOP's in deep doo-doo. Similar situation in red red red state Alabama. Similar in my own state, Georgia.
18geneg
It don't matter how hard the dems whip the repubs in raw numbers during the primaries if those same voters don't vote democratic in November.
19weener
I understand that it's beautiful up there, but, between the horse-sized mosquitoes and the public representatives... I can't help but wonder how you keep yourself from moving a little east and south into saner territory.
For what it's worth, at least Alaska's governor is a smokin' hot babe.
For what it's worth, at least Alaska's governor is a smokin' hot babe.
20Arctic-Stranger
I didn't vote for her, and she shows some inexperience, but on the whole she is a decent governor. (Of course $100 a barrel oil prices help!)
21enevada
#18: Democrats enjoy a slight advantage in numbers, which is effectively countered by Republicans who actually do go out and vote.
I also think the primary numbers are not reliable indicators of general election turnout, but, hey, have a party.
Romney endorses McCain today, I'm told.
I also think the primary numbers are not reliable indicators of general election turnout, but, hey, have a party.
Romney endorses McCain today, I'm told.
22BGP
>17 NativeRoses: It's a positively shameless concession to the right, and virtually inexplicable given the fact that, at this point, he cannot lose the nomination. If he's willing to compromise on such issues publicly, what else will he compromise on?
23enevada
Now, now, BGP, isn't compromise the mothers-milk of politics?
Perhaps McCain would answer that he wants to win the war on terror, not merely end it.
Perhaps McCain would answer that he wants to win the war on terror, not merely end it.
24Arctic-Stranger
Compromise is the teat of politics, but outright betrayal of your own principles is not.
Time and time again he has made the argument that torture does not work. Now it does? What changed?
Time and time again he has made the argument that torture does not work. Now it does? What changed?
25enevada
Here is McCain’s complete Statement, posted below.
BTW, how did Sen. Clinton and Senator Obama vote on the Intelligence Authorization Bill yesterday?
"Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report in its current form.
During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.
That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding” constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.
Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, “Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.” This remains my view today.
When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.
Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.
The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.
This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.
In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a “shocks the conscience” analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding “shocks the conscience.”
It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.” Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.
It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.
We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them."
BTW, how did Sen. Clinton and Senator Obama vote on the Intelligence Authorization Bill yesterday?
"Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report in its current form.
During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.
That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding” constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.
Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, “Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.” This remains my view today.
When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.
Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.
The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.
This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.
In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a “shocks the conscience” analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding “shocks the conscience.”
It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.” Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.
It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.
We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them."
26Arctic-Stranger
Well, well, well. It turns out neither were there. Shame on them. (Seriously, shame on them.)
27BGP
On another note, McCain's rating vis a vi the promotion of sustainability is disheartening...
29sergerca
Arctic,
Some have said your governor is a dark horse for McCain's VP. How would that be in in AK? I know little about her. Would she be an asset to his ticket?
Some have said your governor is a dark horse for McCain's VP. How would that be in in AK? I know little about her. Would she be an asset to his ticket?
30BGP
>28 enevada: To awkwardly paraphrase the late Lloyd Bentsen (I guess I haven't consumed my full morning quota of coffee):
"enevada, Oregonians have served with environmentally friendly Republicans. We have known Environmentalist Republicans. Environmentally friendly Republicans have been friends of ours. Senator John McCain is no environmentalist!"
"enevada, Oregonians have served with environmentally friendly Republicans. We have known Environmentalist Republicans. Environmentally friendly Republicans have been friends of ours. Senator John McCain is no environmentalist!"
31enevada
#30 No one disputes you. And if it were an election for the Environmentalist-in-chief, I might be concerned. My primary concern with the executive office is foreign policy, followed very closely by court nominations, and distantly with tax policy. Top down, as the office was intended to work.
Environmental issues are best handled from the grass roots up - the local community is the most responsive and most invested in land stewardship. This is how I live and how I vote.
Environmental issues are best handled from the grass roots up - the local community is the most responsive and most invested in land stewardship. This is how I live and how I vote.
32BGP
>31 enevada: The local community cannot: cap greenhouse gases; enforce higher fuel efficiency standards; enforce environmentally friendly trade restrictions on our major trading partners (several of whom are reaching American levels of pollution production); successfully promote the usage of environmentally friendly means of energy production (and, yes, that does include top of the line nuclear energy); and so on.
The fact of the matter is that green politics is almost entirely a top down issue.
With McCain we will get four or eight years more of the same (and that goes for China and India, as well).
The fact of the matter is that green politics is almost entirely a top down issue.
With McCain we will get four or eight years more of the same (and that goes for China and India, as well).
33enevada
More of the same? OnEarth didn't think so, when it wrote this article in 2004:
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/04spr/mccain1.asp
And, speaking of top-down regulation, let's not forget the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act:
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm
Green politics may be top-down: yes, I'll give you that, and feel slightly uneasy about it. Green living isn't, and that's where I put my energy and assume my responsibility.
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/04spr/mccain1.asp
And, speaking of top-down regulation, let's not forget the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act:
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm
Green politics may be top-down: yes, I'll give you that, and feel slightly uneasy about it. Green living isn't, and that's where I put my energy and assume my responsibility.
34geneg
Enevada in #31 said, "My primary concern with the executive office is foreign policy, followed very closely by court nominations, and distantly with tax policy.
What, exactly do you consider when you look at a successful foreign policy and how have the Republics over the last seven years fulfilled these expectations?
Are you looking for a Supreme Court that keeps an eye on our private lives while aiding and abetting the destruction of the middle class?
And which of the two suggested tax policies, the Flat Tax or the "Fair" Tax (Eric would be proud) would you saddle the American people with?
What, exactly do you consider when you look at a successful foreign policy and how have the Republics over the last seven years fulfilled these expectations?
Are you looking for a Supreme Court that keeps an eye on our private lives while aiding and abetting the destruction of the middle class?
And which of the two suggested tax policies, the Flat Tax or the "Fair" Tax (Eric would be proud) would you saddle the American people with?
35enevada
geneg,
We have guests coming for dinner and I am doing most of the cooking so I have to be brief, not evasive but I must point out that whoever the Dem nominee is they won't be running against Bush:
1. We will still be at war in November, I will be looking for a commander in chief who will commit to winning the war and not merely ending it.
2. Judiciary appointments of the caliber of Roberts and Alito suit me just fine.
3. I don't intend to saddle anyone with taxes - I'm not sure if the flat tax would be worth the investment, but, in general, I want to see a candidate that agrees with my philosophy of tax cuts coupled with spending cuts.
I don't expect agreement with you on any of these issues, and I don't seek it. You will continue to vote Democratic and I will continue to vote Republican. That's life in America.
We have guests coming for dinner and I am doing most of the cooking so I have to be brief, not evasive but I must point out that whoever the Dem nominee is they won't be running against Bush:
1. We will still be at war in November, I will be looking for a commander in chief who will commit to winning the war and not merely ending it.
2. Judiciary appointments of the caliber of Roberts and Alito suit me just fine.
3. I don't intend to saddle anyone with taxes - I'm not sure if the flat tax would be worth the investment, but, in general, I want to see a candidate that agrees with my philosophy of tax cuts coupled with spending cuts.
I don't expect agreement with you on any of these issues, and I don't seek it. You will continue to vote Democratic and I will continue to vote Republican. That's life in America.
36geneg
Thanks for the reply, enevada.
I actually do agree with you on number one, as much as I think going in was wrong, pulling out willy-nilly will be wronger. If Bush was at all competent I don't think he would have lost the people on this war.
#2 I have heard a lot about what to expect. We'll see where we are in ten years with them.
#3 I only know of the two tax plans I pointed out above, neither of which I can make sense of. If it were possible I would like to use imports and duties for taxes, the way it used to be, but I don't think that will raise enough money and will be a hindrance to trade. Everything else is regressive in nature. The only thing that ever worked was the progressive income tax, sad as it may seem.
I hope you have a good time tonight with your company.
I actually do agree with you on number one, as much as I think going in was wrong, pulling out willy-nilly will be wronger. If Bush was at all competent I don't think he would have lost the people on this war.
#2 I have heard a lot about what to expect. We'll see where we are in ten years with them.
#3 I only know of the two tax plans I pointed out above, neither of which I can make sense of. If it were possible I would like to use imports and duties for taxes, the way it used to be, but I don't think that will raise enough money and will be a hindrance to trade. Everything else is regressive in nature. The only thing that ever worked was the progressive income tax, sad as it may seem.
I hope you have a good time tonight with your company.
37NativeRoses
McCain on autism:
“It’s indisputable that autism is on the rise among children,” Senator John McCain said while campaigning recently in Texas. “The question is, What’s causing it? And we go back and forth, and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.”
Huh???
“It’s indisputable that autism is on the rise among children,” Senator John McCain said while campaigning recently in Texas. “The question is, What’s causing it? And we go back and forth, and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.”
Huh???
38Arctic-Stranger
Republican science in action.
Edited to add: Our smoking hot babe of a governor is pregnant.
Edited to add: Our smoking hot babe of a governor is pregnant.
39BGP
>37 NativeRoses: I thought it was a punishment from God because the child's soul had been corrupted by the parent's use or promotion of (select your preferred form of blasphemy here).
40Arctic-Stranger
Actually I am reading a book The Brain that Changes Itself on neuroscience and plasticity of the brain, and their theory is that the prevelence of white noise has a detrimental effect on some children. Autistic children apparently get input all at once, and not in sequences, as most people do. So while your brain puts things in order (background music relegated to minor parts of the brain, the conversation you are currently have in the forefront) a person with autism justs gets all input in the same area at the same time (NOISE! TOUCH! SMELL!)
41BGP
>38 Arctic-Stranger: I heard. People are saying that that officially takes her out of the running for VP, but: a) she's almost due; b) maybe it's just me, but I don't get the feeling that McCain is going to let the VP do anything productive and practical...
And, anyway, "baby-making" is easier to deal with than say, the unsubstantiated rumors that seem to follow in the wake of the Governor of Florida.
And, anyway, "baby-making" is easier to deal with than say, the unsubstantiated rumors that seem to follow in the wake of the Governor of Florida.
42BGP
>40 Arctic-Stranger: Can't we still blame that on the blasphemous activity of the child's parents?
43NativeRoses
McCain's temper:
Republican Sen. John McCain, showing a flash of the temper he is known for, repeatedly cut off a reporter Friday when asked whether he had spoken to Democratic Sen. John Kerry about being his vice president in 2004.
Republican Sen. John McCain, showing a flash of the temper he is known for, repeatedly cut off a reporter Friday when asked whether he had spoken to Democratic Sen. John Kerry about being his vice president in 2004.
44NativeRoses
Senility goes international: McCain's delusions re foreign policy
Excerpt:
Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.
Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut {his apparent keeper for this trip}, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself
Mr. McCain has based his campaign in large part on his assertion that he is the candidate best prepared to deal with Iraq.
So if Lieberman is permitted to sleep with him every night, we might be ok when that 3 a.m. call comes through. ;-)
Excerpt:
Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.
Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut {his apparent keeper for this trip}, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself
Mr. McCain has based his campaign in large part on his assertion that he is the candidate best prepared to deal with Iraq.
So if Lieberman is permitted to sleep with him every night, we might be ok when that 3 a.m. call comes through. ;-)
45theoria
>So if Lieberman is permitted to sleep with him every night, we might be ok when that 3 a.m. call comes through. ;-)
if this is the sleeping arrangement it might be worthwhile to support mccain. talk about change!
we'll see if the "experienced" mccain actually has mastery over details of foreign policy in the fall.
if this is the sleeping arrangement it might be worthwhile to support mccain. talk about change!
we'll see if the "experienced" mccain actually has mastery over details of foreign policy in the fall.
47BGP
Between the "tax reforms" and the War, Bush and McCain will bankrupt this nation.
48NativeRoses
More of the same old, same old: McCain is hiring a lot of Bush's old staff, including Karl Rove
49geneg
I see this as an election between the old politics of personal destruction, unrelieved partisanship, and an ineffective and indeed self destructive politics and a kinder, gentler politics in which working together and the vision thing are more prominent: a new politics. Many people want the latter to prevail and there is a feeling that if not this time, we may never have the opportunity to right the ship, again. Although, I am more inclined to believe we will have a second chance in 2012 unless Clinton is the president.
Both McCain and Clinton represent the old, divisive politics, while Obama represents a clean, fresh start. Many people who seldom step up to the ballot, have decided to come out for the new politics. If the end result is old against old (Hillary vs. John) these people will give up on politics for years and in some instances for life.
Continuing the current politics of supercilious debate, personal attacks, pursuit of a manifestly failed ideology combined with patent authoritarianism, and a lack of appropriate homage to truth and fact will destroy us as a community and a country.
We must give a new politics a chance to exert itself. This is what Obama offers. Just as anyone paying attention could tell Reagan was full of BS, many non-voters came out in droves for him. This is the moment in our lives when the pendulum begins to swing back and if it is prevented from beginning it's motion it will be stuck in the present.
Pixie Dust is only needed if McCain or Clinton is elected. It will be just as effective for them as it has been for BushCo.
Both McCain and Clinton represent the old, divisive politics, while Obama represents a clean, fresh start. Many people who seldom step up to the ballot, have decided to come out for the new politics. If the end result is old against old (Hillary vs. John) these people will give up on politics for years and in some instances for life.
Continuing the current politics of supercilious debate, personal attacks, pursuit of a manifestly failed ideology combined with patent authoritarianism, and a lack of appropriate homage to truth and fact will destroy us as a community and a country.
We must give a new politics a chance to exert itself. This is what Obama offers. Just as anyone paying attention could tell Reagan was full of BS, many non-voters came out in droves for him. This is the moment in our lives when the pendulum begins to swing back and if it is prevented from beginning it's motion it will be stuck in the present.
Pixie Dust is only needed if McCain or Clinton is elected. It will be just as effective for them as it has been for BushCo.
50jjwilson61
But nearly every election has a candidate of the new less divisive politics who even wins sometimes. When I first started voting for president Carter was that candidate. More recently Bill Clinton was that candidate and later it was the second Bush. Remember that Bush represented kinder gentler conservatism and he apparently worked well with the Democrats in the Texas state house.
So when someone claims to be the candidate to remove divisiveness from politics I'm skeptical. Even if sincere, I don't think it can survive the atmosphere in Washington.
(I'm not completely cynical though. Something that I think might help tone down divisive politics is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)).
So when someone claims to be the candidate to remove divisiveness from politics I'm skeptical. Even if sincere, I don't think it can survive the atmosphere in Washington.
(I'm not completely cynical though. Something that I think might help tone down divisive politics is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)).
51NativeRoses
From Phillip Butler, ret. Commander, US Navy ~
Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
From the article:
"I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates."
The most telling stuff is about McCain as a POW. There were 600 POWs who were treated the same as, or worse than, McCain.
Quote: "I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button."
Quote: "I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the 'straight talk express' he markets himself to be."
* originally posted in a Readerville forum
Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
From the article:
"I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates."
The most telling stuff is about McCain as a POW. There were 600 POWs who were treated the same as, or worse than, McCain.
Quote: "I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button."
Quote: "I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the 'straight talk express' he markets himself to be."
* originally posted in a Readerville forum
52Medellia
The most telling stuff is about McCain as a POW. There were 600 POWs who were treated the same as, or worse than, McCain.
I really don't think that diminishes his experience. "So you were a POW--well, some people had it worse than you, so who cares about your deal."? And frankly, I don't see what the POW stuff had to do with "Why I'm Not Voting For John McCain." I find it icky.
The last 4 paragraphs or so of that article put forward what I would consider to be legitimate reasons not to vote for McCain. The rest of it contains BS like this:
"Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years."
I'm not a McCain supporter. But most of that article made me cringe.
I really don't think that diminishes his experience. "So you were a POW--well, some people had it worse than you, so who cares about your deal."? And frankly, I don't see what the POW stuff had to do with "Why I'm Not Voting For John McCain." I find it icky.
The last 4 paragraphs or so of that article put forward what I would consider to be legitimate reasons not to vote for McCain. The rest of it contains BS like this:
"Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years."
I'm not a McCain supporter. But most of that article made me cringe.
53geneg
My Representative (TX,3,R) is Sam Johnson. Now, Sam spent 4 years visiting Hanoi, staying in the Hanoi Hilton before John McCain arrived. When McCain did arrive he stayed in the same room with Sam for at least eighteen months.
Usually men who experience stressful situations together form a bond that marks them out as special in a private sort of way. Whether or not such a bond ever formed between Sam Johnson and John McCain I don't know. I can say that if it did, it has dissipated by now. Sam Johnson has had nothing but cool, cordial relations with McCain since before they came home. Something happened in the Hanoi Hilton that turned Sam Johnson and John McCain from brothers in arms to at best acquaintances privately holding grudges.
I don't have any idea what the grudge may be, but McCain's days as a POW may be troubled in ways not politically expedient.
I don't trust John McCain. He presents himself as a maverick in such a way that a lot of people will think he is more liberal than he is. He is a mainstream Conservative with questionable morals (Keating 5 and subsequent efforts to scrub his own problems with the temptations of corruption). His voting record in Congress is one of the most conservative, and he has a raging temper, not the guy I want negotiating anything.
John McCain is a raging authoritarian to boot.
Usually men who experience stressful situations together form a bond that marks them out as special in a private sort of way. Whether or not such a bond ever formed between Sam Johnson and John McCain I don't know. I can say that if it did, it has dissipated by now. Sam Johnson has had nothing but cool, cordial relations with McCain since before they came home. Something happened in the Hanoi Hilton that turned Sam Johnson and John McCain from brothers in arms to at best acquaintances privately holding grudges.
I don't have any idea what the grudge may be, but McCain's days as a POW may be troubled in ways not politically expedient.
I don't trust John McCain. He presents himself as a maverick in such a way that a lot of people will think he is more liberal than he is. He is a mainstream Conservative with questionable morals (Keating 5 and subsequent efforts to scrub his own problems with the temptations of corruption). His voting record in Congress is one of the most conservative, and he has a raging temper, not the guy I want negotiating anything.
John McCain is a raging authoritarian to boot.
54BGP
>51 NativeRoses: "The most telling stuff is about McCain as a POW. There were 600 POWs who were treated the same as, or worse than, McCain." -N.R.
Abandon this line of argument. Immediately. It is unconscionable.
Edit for users who don't know me: N.R. and I (almost certainly) have the same dog in this fight; it is the argument, suggestion, intimation--call it what you will--that I take umbrage with.
Abandon this line of argument. Immediately. It is unconscionable.
Edit for users who don't know me: N.R. and I (almost certainly) have the same dog in this fight; it is the argument, suggestion, intimation--call it what you will--that I take umbrage with.
55Arctic-Stranger
Agreed. He was a POW, among many others. The fact he was a POW and the fact that there were others is irrelevent in and of itself.
56geneg
My post (#53) on this subject was meant to suggest there are aspects of his character which we are not aware. I have no problem asking questions about what went on in those years in Hanoi. If he's going to use it as a campaign argument, then it's only fair to us we know the facts.
I hate shibboleths, they only lead to trouble.
I hate shibboleths, they only lead to trouble.
57NativeRoses
54 > BGP, did you read the article before responding? The point i summarized was made by another POW, ret. Commander, US Navy, Phillip Butler, PhD. He writes:
John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. .... He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. .... He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
58NativeRoses
> 55 The fact he was a POW and the fact that there were others is irrelevent in and of itself.
Agreed. However, that's not a point from the article that my summary was intended to allude to. i assumed people would read the article before responding and would have some familiarity with McCain's campaign. My mistake.
From the article:
But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
Commander Butler does not minimize McCain's heroism, but writes:
John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case – new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW.
and
He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years.
Agreed. However, that's not a point from the article that my summary was intended to allude to. i assumed people would read the article before responding and would have some familiarity with McCain's campaign. My mistake.
From the article:
But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
Commander Butler does not minimize McCain's heroism, but writes:
John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case – new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW.
and
He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years.
59Medellia
#57/8: Can you, or anyone else, point out a single instance in which McCain's campaign has made him out to be THE hero? I can't.
60jjwilson61
58> You think that Americans are so stupid that they will believe that there was only one US POW in the Vietnam war!?
61Arctic-Stranger
Although turnabout is fair play in some cases, I don't think anyone really wins if we "swift boat" McCain. I like to think we Dems have more scruples than that.
That is what was behind my post.
That is what was behind my post.
62NativeRoses
Calling a person "one hero among many" is now swiftboating? Did Commander Butler, an 8 year POW, accuse McCain of being a liar or impugn his courage (Kerry-swiftboating)?
He writes: "John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity."
Even if Commander Butler is who he says he is, does PC speech control now mandate that his impressions and opinions should be silenced? Dr. Butler is giving his views as to why he won't be voting for McCain: age, temperament, and continuation of rightwing policies.
He writes: "John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity."
Even if Commander Butler is who he says he is, does PC speech control now mandate that his impressions and opinions should be silenced? Dr. Butler is giving his views as to why he won't be voting for McCain: age, temperament, and continuation of rightwing policies.
63Arctic-Stranger
I did not mean that it was, but it looked like things were heading in that direction. I had not read the whole article.
64BGP
To qualify the status of a POW or to specifically pass along Butler's meme ("one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe") will only serve to alienate soldiers and those who know them, especially given the fact that, while McCain has made numerous references to his experience on the stump, he has never advertised it with the bombast and braggadocio of Kerry.
More importantly, the fact of the matter is that McCain's status was extremely unique. There were more than 8.2 million Americans involved in the war effort, while there was something around 600 POWs. McCain did receive special attention from the Viet Minh, because the Viet Minh's intelligence services were quick to determine that he was the son of an active four star admiral. As for the suggestion that he was "only" tortured for two years... It's disgusting. Let Butler say whatever he wants or feels the need to say, but never forget that neither you nor I have the right to call that into question.
While he was in custody, McCain was offered two deals by the Viet Minh: 1) you will be released immediately if you go on camera, explain you who are the son of and denounce this war (he refused); 2) we're beginning to release POWs, and you're going to be released in one of the first batches as a good will gesture (he refused on the grounds that he would not leave until everyone who was located in the same facility would also be released).
On a personal note, I am a harsh critic of the pointless and morally bankrupt war which began under Kennedy as a colonial venture, evolved into a test for an abstract (and, as evidence would demonstrate, half-baked) "domino theory" under Johnson, and, under the tenure of Nixon & Kissinger, ultimately evolved into a cynical regional war which directly killed over two million civilians, completely destabilized two neighboring countries and sullied the name of America the world over for an entire generation (sound familiar?).
Similarly, try as I might, I find nothing to approve of in McCain's political platform. But I'm going to engage his campaign by analyzing his platform, debating policy points and actively promoting a far more reasonable and progressive alternative.
I'm not going to resort to playing down or trivializing one man's personal experiences, experiences which include two years of torture.
Trust Arctic (a man who works with recent Iraqi veterans) and myself (the son of a Green Beret who served in Vietnam) when we frankly say that this line of argument--or even the intimation of the argument--is unnecessary, out of line and, if it is adopted by even a strong minority of Democrats, it could easily destroy the candidacy of our preferred candidate.
Just... Let it go.
More importantly, the fact of the matter is that McCain's status was extremely unique. There were more than 8.2 million Americans involved in the war effort, while there was something around 600 POWs. McCain did receive special attention from the Viet Minh, because the Viet Minh's intelligence services were quick to determine that he was the son of an active four star admiral. As for the suggestion that he was "only" tortured for two years... It's disgusting. Let Butler say whatever he wants or feels the need to say, but never forget that neither you nor I have the right to call that into question.
While he was in custody, McCain was offered two deals by the Viet Minh: 1) you will be released immediately if you go on camera, explain you who are the son of and denounce this war (he refused); 2) we're beginning to release POWs, and you're going to be released in one of the first batches as a good will gesture (he refused on the grounds that he would not leave until everyone who was located in the same facility would also be released).
On a personal note, I am a harsh critic of the pointless and morally bankrupt war which began under Kennedy as a colonial venture, evolved into a test for an abstract (and, as evidence would demonstrate, half-baked) "domino theory" under Johnson, and, under the tenure of Nixon & Kissinger, ultimately evolved into a cynical regional war which directly killed over two million civilians, completely destabilized two neighboring countries and sullied the name of America the world over for an entire generation (sound familiar?).
Similarly, try as I might, I find nothing to approve of in McCain's political platform. But I'm going to engage his campaign by analyzing his platform, debating policy points and actively promoting a far more reasonable and progressive alternative.
I'm not going to resort to playing down or trivializing one man's personal experiences, experiences which include two years of torture.
Trust Arctic (a man who works with recent Iraqi veterans) and myself (the son of a Green Beret who served in Vietnam) when we frankly say that this line of argument--or even the intimation of the argument--is unnecessary, out of line and, if it is adopted by even a strong minority of Democrats, it could easily destroy the candidacy of our preferred candidate.
Just... Let it go.
65Medellia
Calling a person "one hero among many" is now swiftboating? Did Commander Butler, an 8 year POW, accuse McCain of being a liar or impugn his courage (Kerry-swiftboating)?
It's not swiftboating, but it sure does seem like a silly pissing match to me.
"People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No – John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW."
It's not swiftboating, but it sure does seem like a silly pissing match to me.
"People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No – John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW."
66NativeRoses
64 > As for the suggestion that he was "only" tortured for two years... It's disgusting.
Where do you see this?
Where do you see this?
68Medellia
Here's McCain's account of his time as a POW, from McCain's book Faith of My Fathers. In it he specifically addresses the fact that the beatings occurred during the first two years, and conditions improved thereafter.
He gives the date of his capture as October 26, 1967. Toward the end of the excerpt is this paragraph: "By the end of 1969, routine beatings had almost stopped. We occasionally received extra rations. Our circumstances would never be as dire as they had been in those early years. I was released and flown home at the end of the war, in March 1973. I had been incarcerated for five-and-a-half years."
I found it to be an honest and interesting account of his time as a POW. Here's the link to the excerpt:
Here
He gives the date of his capture as October 26, 1967. Toward the end of the excerpt is this paragraph: "By the end of 1969, routine beatings had almost stopped. We occasionally received extra rations. Our circumstances would never be as dire as they had been in those early years. I was released and flown home at the end of the war, in March 1973. I had been incarcerated for five-and-a-half years."
I found it to be an honest and interesting account of his time as a POW. Here's the link to the excerpt:
Here
69BGP
>66 NativeRoses: In post 58 you quoted Butler as stating, "he was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years (emphasis my own)."
Such a quote serves no other purpose but to diminish McCain's experience.
Such a quote serves no other purpose but to diminish McCain's experience.
70NativeRoses
Ok, that's different from saying Dr. Butler suggested McCain was "only" tortured for two years.
There may be another interpretation for what Butler did write other than "playing down or trivializing one man's personal experiences." Butler may feel McCain has allowed the media to treat him as though he were the only POW. As another POW, Butler may find that insulting. Butler might also feel that McCain is using his POW status politically and disagree with that. These are merely my interpretations of Butler's perceptions. My interpretations and Butler's conclusions are naturally open for debate.
But that's a long way from saying the topic is Off. Limits. Should the opinions of another POW be silenced about candidate McCain as they touch on his POW status? Note that i'm not asking if one agrees or disagrees with Butler, but whether his perceptions should be shunned. Some people go so far as to say John McCain should never be questioned hard because he was a POW. Nobody here went quite that far, but the conversation did become heated and people went beyond criticism to an attempt to shut down consideration of Dr. Butler's views: it could easily destroy the candidacy of our preferred candidate. Just... Let it go.
Should speaking highly of someone (saying they showed great courage, loyalty and tenacity during their service), but saying you won't vote for him because of the following x, y, z concerns should be strongly discouraged?
It was an opinion piece, not a hit piece, and i think the author made his respect abundantly clear. (He even left out a piece of McCain's background that nobody in their right mind should criticize him on, unless they were writing a sleazy hit piece.) But, while many of us have the deepest respect and gratitude for McCain's service, that respect still falls short of apotheosis.
There may be another interpretation for what Butler did write other than "playing down or trivializing one man's personal experiences." Butler may feel McCain has allowed the media to treat him as though he were the only POW. As another POW, Butler may find that insulting. Butler might also feel that McCain is using his POW status politically and disagree with that. These are merely my interpretations of Butler's perceptions. My interpretations and Butler's conclusions are naturally open for debate.
But that's a long way from saying the topic is Off. Limits. Should the opinions of another POW be silenced about candidate McCain as they touch on his POW status? Note that i'm not asking if one agrees or disagrees with Butler, but whether his perceptions should be shunned. Some people go so far as to say John McCain should never be questioned hard because he was a POW. Nobody here went quite that far, but the conversation did become heated and people went beyond criticism to an attempt to shut down consideration of Dr. Butler's views: it could easily destroy the candidacy of our preferred candidate. Just... Let it go.
Should speaking highly of someone (saying they showed great courage, loyalty and tenacity during their service), but saying you won't vote for him because of the following x, y, z concerns should be strongly discouraged?
It was an opinion piece, not a hit piece, and i think the author made his respect abundantly clear. (He even left out a piece of McCain's background that nobody in their right mind should criticize him on, unless they were writing a sleazy hit piece.) But, while many of us have the deepest respect and gratitude for McCain's service, that respect still falls short of apotheosis.
71BGP
The record will show (both here, and in the Political Conservatives group) that my respect for McCain falls far, far short of apotheosis.
As a genuine politico, I'm interested in challenging the candidate on the merit of his political platform, and, in the process, winning an election. Nothing more, nothing less.
Some subjects simply do not make for good politics. That said, I've made my point. If there are any independents, moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans here who may take offense to the latent meme in the quote in question, they are now well aware that this is not a line of discussion which is being pursued by most Obama supporters.
If you still feel that there is merit in the discussion, carry on.
As a genuine politico, I'm interested in challenging the candidate on the merit of his political platform, and, in the process, winning an election. Nothing more, nothing less.
Some subjects simply do not make for good politics. That said, I've made my point. If there are any independents, moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans here who may take offense to the latent meme in the quote in question, they are now well aware that this is not a line of discussion which is being pursued by most Obama supporters.
If you still feel that there is merit in the discussion, carry on.
72Arctic-Stranger
I do find it interesting that two people who don't want to see McCain become president are defending him on this one.
73Doug1943
As a semi-detached American, of fairly conservative leanings, it seems to me that in McCain and Obama we have two people whose moral character is a cut above those of most of the candidates we have had to choose from in the last few decades.
Not perfect. There are worrying aspects about both of them, with respect to how they would perform as President. And neither is absolutely "clean", when it comes to the contamination of big-money in American politics. But I think their respective supporters can feel pretty good about the men they are supporting, as regards their personal integrity.
Not perfect. There are worrying aspects about both of them, with respect to how they would perform as President. And neither is absolutely "clean", when it comes to the contamination of big-money in American politics. But I think their respective supporters can feel pretty good about the men they are supporting, as regards their personal integrity.
74Arctic-Stranger
To be fair, I would say George W. Bush has, in many aspects, exceptional moral character. I believe he is a fine, upstanding Christian man, and exemplifies many aspects that Christians respect.
I would say the same thing about Jimmy Carter.
Not that that helped either of them as President, it seems.
I would say the same thing about Jimmy Carter.
Not that that helped either of them as President, it seems.
75Doug1943
Both Bush and Carter, in their Christianity, are genuine American types. Carter, who is admirable in many ways, cannot escape being a Scold. And Bush exemplifies Self-Improvement Christianity, including its complacent and intellectually-lazy aspects. We could do worse.
77geneg
Christianity does definitely have a guide to living, whether it is seen as self improvement, or the natural improvement that flows from discerning and doing the will of God. But I don't think it has the kind of self improvement that most Republics adhere to, like a fly on flypaper, trapped in the descending spiral of their own failed rhetoric.
78jmcgarve
#75 I have to disagree. Bush is not much into self improvement, because he has never made a mistake, even including all those bald faced lies he has told us. He is also a profoundly lazy guy, who can't bother to learn anything that challenges his current thinking. Bush represents the ultra hypocritical school of Christianity, praying every morning that all of his actions would be God's will, and absolutely certain that his prayer is answered completely.
79wildbill
I think that John McCain is walking a tightrope in his relationship with George Bush. The American public views Bush as a failed President. His approval ratings are in the 20's. The economy is hurting badly and people have little confidence in the future. In Iraq Bush has proved that his father was right. It also has been shown that the reasons given for the war were not valid.
At the same time McCain cannot win unless the people who voted for Bush vote for him, particularly the strong support from the Christian right. Right now it seems that those groups are not enthusiastic about politics at all.
I think that a McCain victory would be an upset. Eight years of Republicans have not been good for the country. The old Reagan line, "Are you better off than you were eight years ago ?". Most people say no.
At the same time McCain cannot win unless the people who voted for Bush vote for him, particularly the strong support from the Christian right. Right now it seems that those groups are not enthusiastic about politics at all.
I think that a McCain victory would be an upset. Eight years of Republicans have not been good for the country. The old Reagan line, "Are you better off than you were eight years ago ?". Most people say no.
80Doug1943
Bush's self-improvement is at the personal level, and at that level, he is actually an example of what the religious experience can do for you, in a good sense. Snooty liberal intellectuals don't understand this.
Bush in his youth was a wastrel, and religion helped him get back on the track and live a decent family-centered life, as a man of modest talents who was lucky enough to be born wealthy.
And that was the problem with his presidency. If he had been president during "normal" times, when all you had to do was not very much, he would have disappeared from history, like all those 19th Century Presidents no one but history buffs can name.
But he was suddenly thrust into a complex and fast-changing world, which not even the smartest among us really understandz. He tried to understand it through a very simple, Hollywood template -- with terrible results.
But ... that world has not gone away. It's becoming even more of what it was. The next President is going to have to face it, and there is not much evidence of deep thinking about it in any political camp.
For example: the Iranian mullahs will soon have nuclear weapons. (Anyone who doubts this is disqualified by that belief alone from being taken seriously as an analysis of world politics.)
What should our response be, if anything?
Mr Obama is clearly much smarter than Mr Bush. But there is no evidence that he has thought much about this situation.
Of course, if you believe that the cause of the world's problems is the United States, oppressing all those nice Third World people and their well-meaning leaders, as some of Mr Obama's supporters clearly do, then the do-nothing option is the obvious one, and Mr McCain, as the original YouTube video referenced in the first post implies, is a mad war-monger. Indeed, why have a military at all?
Bush in his youth was a wastrel, and religion helped him get back on the track and live a decent family-centered life, as a man of modest talents who was lucky enough to be born wealthy.
And that was the problem with his presidency. If he had been president during "normal" times, when all you had to do was not very much, he would have disappeared from history, like all those 19th Century Presidents no one but history buffs can name.
But he was suddenly thrust into a complex and fast-changing world, which not even the smartest among us really understandz. He tried to understand it through a very simple, Hollywood template -- with terrible results.
But ... that world has not gone away. It's becoming even more of what it was. The next President is going to have to face it, and there is not much evidence of deep thinking about it in any political camp.
For example: the Iranian mullahs will soon have nuclear weapons. (Anyone who doubts this is disqualified by that belief alone from being taken seriously as an analysis of world politics.)
What should our response be, if anything?
Mr Obama is clearly much smarter than Mr Bush. But there is no evidence that he has thought much about this situation.
Of course, if you believe that the cause of the world's problems is the United States, oppressing all those nice Third World people and their well-meaning leaders, as some of Mr Obama's supporters clearly do, then the do-nothing option is the obvious one, and Mr McCain, as the original YouTube video referenced in the first post implies, is a mad war-monger. Indeed, why have a military at all?
81modalursine
I'm not enough of a historian to judge how true or realistic this story is; but the version I've been told has it that George Washington's troops offered to make him King of America, but he declined.
That they offered and that he declined, I think, is pretty well established; what is not cleat to me is whether the political situation at the time was such that they could actually have done it.
But assuming, for the sake of argument, that they could have; then in that case George Washington showed great character by refusing.
What has our present president done during his term of office to demonstrate an admirable strength of character that is in any way comparable, i.e. of the same "flavor" even if of lesser magnitude than that shown by the story's version of George Washington ?
Staying sober may have required extraordinary effort and may represent a great personal triumph for our president, but merely staying sober can hardly be the basis of a claim to superior character.
That they offered and that he declined, I think, is pretty well established; what is not cleat to me is whether the political situation at the time was such that they could actually have done it.
But assuming, for the sake of argument, that they could have; then in that case George Washington showed great character by refusing.
What has our present president done during his term of office to demonstrate an admirable strength of character that is in any way comparable, i.e. of the same "flavor" even if of lesser magnitude than that shown by the story's version of George Washington ?
Staying sober may have required extraordinary effort and may represent a great personal triumph for our president, but merely staying sober can hardly be the basis of a claim to superior character.
82Doug1943
No, there is little evidence of world-class character in Mr Bush. But that has been true for most of our Presidents.
Revolutionary situations tend to nurture extraordinary characters.
To be active in the American Revolution you had to be willing to put your life on the line. Had they failed, they would have been hung. You had to have deep, well-founded convictions about what the political order should be like, to risk your life to establish it.
During the crisis of secession, we were just lucky to have Lincoln, as the world was lucky to have Churchill a few decades later. These men combined profound (and humane) convictions about what society should be like, supported by serious study, with a good grasp of human nature and practical politics. These are rare traits, and even more rare in conjunction with each other. Both men had real empathy for their opponents, and strong convictions -- a very unusual combination.
For whatever reason, the Republicans preferred a very ordinary man as their Presidential candidate eight years ago. In ordinary times, this would not have been so bad. It was just bad luck that we are no longer living in ordinary times.
Sometimes people who are themselves rather sparsely endowed with talents, do have the one talent of selecting and surrounding themselves with people who are far more talented than they are, and getting the best from them. I think Harry Truman was like that. Unfortunately, Bush was not. Many of the people he selected were themselves mediocrities. Even those who were not, he did not exercise control over.
Even the most intelligent President would have struggled trying to understand the dangerous and evolving world to which we were so forcefully introduced on 9/11. But Mr Bush failed even with routine domestic problems, like dealing with Hurricane Katrina.
The real disappointment of the Bush Administration is Dick Cheney, a principled and intelligent man -- no matter how much the liberals hate him -- who failed to make up for Mr Bush's deficiencies.
So now, unfortunately, the liberals have been given their chance. (One thought: most liberals now loathe Hillary Clinton. But, for the historical accident of Barak Obama, she would now be the one they were cheering for, which shows how pliable the human mind is.)
Revolutionary situations tend to nurture extraordinary characters.
To be active in the American Revolution you had to be willing to put your life on the line. Had they failed, they would have been hung. You had to have deep, well-founded convictions about what the political order should be like, to risk your life to establish it.
During the crisis of secession, we were just lucky to have Lincoln, as the world was lucky to have Churchill a few decades later. These men combined profound (and humane) convictions about what society should be like, supported by serious study, with a good grasp of human nature and practical politics. These are rare traits, and even more rare in conjunction with each other. Both men had real empathy for their opponents, and strong convictions -- a very unusual combination.
For whatever reason, the Republicans preferred a very ordinary man as their Presidential candidate eight years ago. In ordinary times, this would not have been so bad. It was just bad luck that we are no longer living in ordinary times.
Sometimes people who are themselves rather sparsely endowed with talents, do have the one talent of selecting and surrounding themselves with people who are far more talented than they are, and getting the best from them. I think Harry Truman was like that. Unfortunately, Bush was not. Many of the people he selected were themselves mediocrities. Even those who were not, he did not exercise control over.
Even the most intelligent President would have struggled trying to understand the dangerous and evolving world to which we were so forcefully introduced on 9/11. But Mr Bush failed even with routine domestic problems, like dealing with Hurricane Katrina.
The real disappointment of the Bush Administration is Dick Cheney, a principled and intelligent man -- no matter how much the liberals hate him -- who failed to make up for Mr Bush's deficiencies.
So now, unfortunately, the liberals have been given their chance. (One thought: most liberals now loathe Hillary Clinton. But, for the historical accident of Barak Obama, she would now be the one they were cheering for, which shows how pliable the human mind is.)
83geneg
Bushwa and bilgewater!
Anyone, I say again with emphasis, ANYONE who chooses Karl Rove as his political guru, confidant, and friend has no, once again I say NO character at all at best, and possibly an anti-social character. Doug, You guys never cease to amaze. You will sleep with the devil to carry through what have been demonstrated at least three times in the last twenty years as failed ideologically based policies. You are always trashing "liberals" for not seeing the dangerous world in which we live (admittedly far more dangerous now than it was eight years ago, but I suspect we don't agree on the reasons) but you guys are woefully shortsighted when confronted with evidence of the bankruptcy of Republic conservatism. No one's asking you to stop being conservative, just stop being foolish about it. Open your eyes, look around.
George W. would have been a far more successful president had he suffered the fate of a Van Buren, or a Pierce than he has been during these exciting times, mostly of his own making.
I'm tired of hearing about all the losers he surrounded himself with. Losers don't gravitate naturally to winners, and vice versa. BushCo is the classic example of a loser surrounding himself with more losers. He is currently running neck and neck with 29 for worst president ever. I expect given time he will charge toward the back of the pack with utmost dispatch.
As Ann Richards or Molly Ivins said about shrub, "He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple." Arrogant, hubristic, and just plain stupid! And all the Republics just lapped it up. What else am I supposed to think?
BushCo has been, and, no matter how many spinmeisters he puts on the case at SMU, always will be an unmitigated disaster, not only for America, but for the Republics in general and Ronald Reagan's legacy in particular, and modern conservatism all around.
Once again, give me one thing this bunch has done right. So far I have the appointments of Roberts and Alito, questionable choices, but that's the only thing Republics have been able to come up with, that's some legacy.
I guess this should have been posted in Bush's Legacy (is that an oxymoron, or just a moron), but it got posted here.
Anyone, I say again with emphasis, ANYONE who chooses Karl Rove as his political guru, confidant, and friend has no, once again I say NO character at all at best, and possibly an anti-social character. Doug, You guys never cease to amaze. You will sleep with the devil to carry through what have been demonstrated at least three times in the last twenty years as failed ideologically based policies. You are always trashing "liberals" for not seeing the dangerous world in which we live (admittedly far more dangerous now than it was eight years ago, but I suspect we don't agree on the reasons) but you guys are woefully shortsighted when confronted with evidence of the bankruptcy of Republic conservatism. No one's asking you to stop being conservative, just stop being foolish about it. Open your eyes, look around.
George W. would have been a far more successful president had he suffered the fate of a Van Buren, or a Pierce than he has been during these exciting times, mostly of his own making.
I'm tired of hearing about all the losers he surrounded himself with. Losers don't gravitate naturally to winners, and vice versa. BushCo is the classic example of a loser surrounding himself with more losers. He is currently running neck and neck with 29 for worst president ever. I expect given time he will charge toward the back of the pack with utmost dispatch.
As Ann Richards or Molly Ivins said about shrub, "He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple." Arrogant, hubristic, and just plain stupid! And all the Republics just lapped it up. What else am I supposed to think?
BushCo has been, and, no matter how many spinmeisters he puts on the case at SMU, always will be an unmitigated disaster, not only for America, but for the Republics in general and Ronald Reagan's legacy in particular, and modern conservatism all around.
Once again, give me one thing this bunch has done right. So far I have the appointments of Roberts and Alito, questionable choices, but that's the only thing Republics have been able to come up with, that's some legacy.
I guess this should have been posted in Bush's Legacy (is that an oxymoron, or just a moron), but it got posted here.
84oregonobsessionz
I don’t know how I overlooked this thread.
BGP at #30:
Oregonians have served with environmentally friendly Republicans. We have known Environmentalist Republicans.
True, and McCall was not the only one. We shouldn’t forget Mark Hatfield, Dan Evans, and Clay Myers. Even Slade Gorton, before he was elected Senator and drank the Kool-aid, had a good environmental record.
Republicans in the Pacific Northwest were giants in those days, and they dominated statewide offices in Oregon and Washington. The Republicans we have running for office today are angry, peevish, mean-spirited, and (I can’t resist quoting BTRIPP from another thread) whackjobs who base their day-to-day decisions on the fairy tales of bronze-age herdsmen.
BGP at #30:
Oregonians have served with environmentally friendly Republicans. We have known Environmentalist Republicans.
True, and McCall was not the only one. We shouldn’t forget Mark Hatfield, Dan Evans, and Clay Myers. Even Slade Gorton, before he was elected Senator and drank the Kool-aid, had a good environmental record.
Republicans in the Pacific Northwest were giants in those days, and they dominated statewide offices in Oregon and Washington. The Republicans we have running for office today are angry, peevish, mean-spirited, and (I can’t resist quoting BTRIPP from another thread) whackjobs who base their day-to-day decisions on the fairy tales of bronze-age herdsmen.
