Why John McCain is So "Yesterday"!

I agree completely. When so much of our economy centers on technology and the average American spends a couple of hours (at least) per day on the Internet, isn't this a bad indicator of someone who wants to lead America into the future.

Then with the economy such a tremendous worry, his best solution is to read Alan Greenspan's latest book. Ok, that's a start, but where are his advisors? Phil Gramm? Carly Fiorina who saw a huge drop in the price of stock when she ran HP? Or how about the leverage and buyout king, Mitt Romney.

I'm curious who McCain will choose as a running mate. It certainly needs to be someone who is more in touch with the modern world of business and progress than he is.

Well said.

We, as voters, need to remember we are voting for the future. The past is behind us. We need to learn from it, not repeat it. It's time to move forward, not tread water.

Obama offers a vision of the future.

I agree on everything except the gas-tax holiday.
The pictures on TV yesterday of McCain in Kennebunkport with President Bush Sr really made them both look ancient. Bush Sr. is downright doddery. McCain certainly is not the best choice for president in this day and age. In the past he has been so good at compromise with both parties that it is easy to forget he is showing signs of mental aging and his best days are behind him.

I see hope for the future with Oback Obama.

I disagree with your unequivocal statement of McCain being a "true American hero." I don't consider him that at all. Yes, we all admire that he served in combat, and the fact that he survived 5-1/2 years of what must've been absolute hell as a POW, but what qualifies him as a "true American hero?" I simply don't agree that everyone that ever serves is a hero. Some have been found to be downright contemptable.

We also shouldn't forget that this is a man who was born into a privileged life, and was basically guaranteed to be the Navy's first third generation admiral. All he had to do was provide minimally acceptable service, and he was a shoe-in for the position. Yet, he was brushed aside by the Navy. Why? Obviously, they saw SOMETHING in him that they did NOT find made him an acceptable leader. That speaks volumes, and really should be all that anyone needs to know about whether or not his military service automatically qualifies him to be CIC. Obviously, it does not.

The images of him and poppy strolling around that elitist, exclusive resort yesterday were nothing short of pathetic. What idiot in his campaign decided that to be the best way to present him to a nation starving for change? "Let's see...we've got Obama being treated like a world leader overseas...I know...let's put Johnny up alongside another failed bush president that brought terrible recession...that outta inspire people."

The ONLY thing I can possibly imagine as a justification for this colossally stupid decision was that they wanted to put him alongside someone who was older than he, in order to try to make him appear "young."

No doubt about it. McCain is "old school". The contrast between the two candidates when you see them on a stage together engaging in "debates" will be stark. During his run against Bill Clinton I recall seeing Senator Bob Dole in a photo wearing shorts and a white, armless "muscle shirt". He looked like a refugee from a rocking chair on the porch of a nursing home. Obama, the young "skinny guy" who can put up a respectable jump shot on the basketball court vs. the gimpy guy "with more scars than Frankenstein"--want to put some money on that match-up?

McCain a hero? Sure, he put his ass on the line in combat--as have millions of other good Americans. He got unlucky and wound up in the hands of the enemy, where he was tormented for years. I'll give him credit for refusing to be released by the NVA ahead of his compatriots--but what other choice did he really have? Taking the carrot would have made him appear to be a despicable coward, verging on treason. His own Dad would probably have disowned him. America was not very welcoming of returning Viet Nam vets in any case. He would have become a pariah.

He's clueless about more than computers. His gas-tax holiday gimmick was a transparent bid to bribe voters with a free tank of gas. Obama had the guts, and good sense, to call him on it--just a "feel-good" handout that would have crippled the principle funding source for maintaining an essential part of our infrastucture, which is crumbling in any event.

-Sorry, Senator, but Americans don't sell their votes quite that cheaply.

Clark,

In his own way, I do believe that McCain is a "hero" and has served his country well. A more important point or question is whether his POW time has DISQUALIFIED him for being President. How is that?

I strongly believe that Senator McCain suffers still from this horrible episode and his 'anger issues' betray his likely PTSD.

I respect and admire John McCain for what he has been through in that period. I cannot support him because of his political record which is dismal. Whether it be as part of the Keating 5 or his inconsistencies on torture, his off-color insensitive jokes, or his apparent naivete regarding the world today, he is NOT the best person for the job.

I don't think his military service is particularly relevant, though I suppose it could be both advantagous and disadvantagous. Either way, t was 35 years or so ago though.

My concerns are twofold: First, he appears prone to discomfort in situations that require judgment and leadership. Second, he appears prone to thinking superficially. The job requires strong judgment, comfort in leading, and comprehensive (i.e., deep and broad) thinking. Obama exhibits those attributes; McCain does not.

The one aspect of George Bush's presidency which has given me hope is the knowledge that he is a throwback to a dying era. Almost every response to every issue has been using yesterdays ideas to attack problems - even though those ideas have been very inappropriate. McCain seems to be more of the same, whereas Obama looks to be a break from the past, which is the only hope the United States has.

I hope he is in time, that it is not already too late.

"Clark,

In his own way, I do believe that McCain is a "hero" and has served his country well. A more important point or question is whether his POW time has DISQUALIFIED him for being President. How is that?"

I don't think he's served his country all that well, to be honest. He was apparently not a particularly bright soldier, he was apparently quite reckless, and he was brushed aside for advancement, when, by all measure, he should've clearly been a shoe-in for admiral. He then married into fabulous wealth and bought his way into the senate, where he soon became immersed in corrupt lobbyists and special favors. I don't call that heroic or even honorable. He deserves credit for having served in combat, and for having the strength and courage to survive 5-1/2 years of pure hell, but again, that doesn't necessarily qualify him as an irrefutable "hero."

I do not see his POW time as valid justification for disqualifying him as a potential president, however. I do agree that he's very likely suffering from PTSD to this day, and appears to be rather unstable as a result, but it remains to be proven whether or not this is the case, or whether or not it is the result of his captivity. My personal belief is that this experience would warp and twist ANYONE's mind, and, after 8 years of a president with a warped/twisted mind, I would prefer someone NOT warped at this point.

I agree with most of what you said in your article, and especially appreciate the last line.

I don't understand this statement, made in a comment: "I respect and admire John McCain for what he has been through in that period." Why does a person deserve respect and admiration for going through something that he didn't choose?

If I must respect and admire people for what they went through during that time, I think I give the draft dodgers those emotions. They chose to do the right thing, which carried its own difficulties. John McCain earns my sympathy for what he endured as a POW, but if I follow his lead I get to dump part of that the way he dumped the wife who "wasn't the same person" any more after her accident.

Excellent points, Robert. I totally agree with your assessment of McCain's campaign. Jon Stewart had a compare/contrast on the media coverage this week....essentially visually showing exactly what you state here. Why shouldn't the media focus in on Obama when he's doing something interesting, as opposed to McCain's blunders and boring same-same speeches, basically rehashes of what we've heard over the past 8 years that has gotten us into the mess we are in today. The Republicans should stop their whining about media coverage - if they want attention, then they/McCain should do/say something worthy of our attention.

I believe John McCain's stubborn stance on the Iraq war is directly related to his own Vietnam experience. He says we must win no matter the cost. He says we must not cut and run.
Isn't that what we did in Vietnam? I remember well the treatment the Vietnam veterans received when they returned home. Is it possible John McCain is still hurt and traumatized about what he went through as a prisoner and then returned home to find it all in vain?
Would that explain why he gets so excited when he talks about us pulling out of Iraq and losing?
What is his definition of winning? We have nothing to win in Iraq. We should be in Afghanistan going after Bin Laden. We should never have been in Iraq and I believe Bush should be held responsible for bringing us into a war under false pretenses.
John McCain keeps yammering about the "surge" and it's success. He didn't order the surge, he merely supported it. He keeps saying he knows how to win a war. When and how did he learn this. What war has he won?
He was a pilot, he has never been in combat on the ground. We cannot keep ignoring McCain's radical views of winning at all cost and his plans to keep us in Iraq an indefinite time!
I believe the surge made the Iraqi's realize they would never rid themselves of us until they quit fighting among themselves. Once they get us out I believe they will resume their age old waring among their factions. I believe the downturn of violence is because the Iraq's cooled their selves and the surge was perhaps the reason but not the winning manuver McCain and Bush believe!

Sandy: Rather than "draft dodgers" I believe it would be more appropriate to use the term "consienctious objectors". Otherwise, I concur with your thoughts.

Barbara: Part of the reason for the "suceess" of the surge was the fact that the respective factions were running out of people to kill. Having driven hundreds of thousands of refugees out of their own country, murdered tens of thousands more, and created defacto internally partitioned bastions for themselves, the conflict was destined to die out of its own accord.

Which is not to say that the conflict won't resume after our troops depart--whenever that may be. Of course, if, as McCain would prefer, our boys and girls in uniform take up permanent residence there (or, say, for a hundred years), that's one thing we won't have to worry about. We'll just have to pay the tab.

"If I must respect and admire people for what they went through during that time, I think I give the draft dodgers those emotions"

Excellent point. Reminds me of how I feel whenever I hear someone call one of the 9/11 hijackers a "coward." No, cowards to NOT carry out plans to hijack commercial airliners armed merely with little boxcutters, and then fly those aircraft directly into buildings.




"The Republicans should stop their whining about media coverage"

Especially since virtually every time ol' Johnny opens his confused piehole, something unbelievably foolish falls out!

Yo, Clark,

Hate to say it but you're a bit off base there on the cowardice theme. The obverse of the cowardly side of the coin is courageousness, and I'm not about to credit those dudes with THAT attribute.

Fearlessness, which can arise out of stupidity or a lack of imagination, is NOT the same thing. The deluded belief that one is going to get one's ticket to paradise punched by murdering thousands of innocents is, likewise, something entirely different.

I'm not sure that people who post under aliases on message boards are the best ones to evaluate someone's heroism or cowardice. In any event I can't wait for the debates to begin just to see how badly McCain gets mauled by Obama. He better have the spin doctors working overtime after that. Just to bring up a tired point though, if Obama were fully white and had an ordinary name like John McCain wouldn't this be as much of a landslide as 1996?

Bravo! Your straight forward candor regarding the facts is pretty undisputable.
I love that you just laid it all out on the table with no fancy talk. I wanted to keep reading more.......

Paul M. ....Hopefully this country is beat down enough and ethically diverse enough to realize how dire our situation is and look past names or skin color. It may be more of a landslide than you anticipate!

Robert;

I'm not going down the WMD path with you; you liberals are the ones that can't get past it. I'll leave it at that.

As a dye-in-the-wool Republican, I can tell you that my party could have done a hell of a lot better than John McCain.

Having said that, this alleged "love affair" the American people have with B. Hussein Obama is going to be news to about 43-46% of the people in this country who are for John McCain. Blow-bama is going to have a hard time running down south in Dixie; Hillary's bitches are pissed that their girl did not get the nod, and the white male vote in general is in play.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, my friend. It is a long, long way until Election Day.

I wish I didn't have to vote for Obama or McCain. They both are idiots.

Obama seems to be all hype and ego. It is turning many off.

Obama seems to be "Yesterday" in making the main theme of his campaign, "Change."

Obama's message is Generic and Boring. He isn't saying anything new. He is presenting the same "message of hope and change" that 10,000 other politicians have for decades in campaigns at every level. The new guy says we need change and the incumbent is part of the broken system. Yawn. This has been the theme of every new guy's campaign from the beginning. THAT is "Yesterday."

The only real change that Obama offers comes nearly every day as he changes his view on every issue facing the American population in this election. His recent flip flopping on FISA should be a major alert to voters about what's in store, as they watch his dance step move from left to center.

Dawne,

I don't think that both McCain and Obama are idiots. Obama is quite bright.

All hype and ego? Shelley, I don't really follow you. Can you be more specific?

And Aimee, change is "yesterday"? I suppose you are right. America has made a wrong turn somewhere. We have endorsed torture, rendition, secrecy in government, spying on citizens without warrants, and incompetency in our regulatory agencies.

Going back to more yesterday when government was performing the needs of the electorate would be a refreshing change. So I can buy that.

What has Obama said that is so fascinating? Or is it just the pictures and that feeling of 'hope' you libs seem to get?

Bugs bunny wo0uld be better than four mores of the incompetent one.

Mclame, senile or liar?

Probably a little of both.

OBAMA

First let me state great article, well put and true and amazingly without slander.

Sandy - You brought up the question of Why should a person be respected for going through something they did not choose? Which is a valid question to ask. However, and with due note that this legnthy and horrific time as a POW really should not be a major selling point on a candidate. As for as the respect or admiration for something one did not choose should be rethought as, do we owe a certain degree of respect for the men and women who took an oath, followed their commands and survived being a POW in another country. For me the answer is absolutely, but I am biased as my late great uncle was part of the groups of prisoners of the Japanese military that was forced to build the bridge over the river kwai. When I heard his stories, and have at every opportunity watched, or listened to the stories of him and other POWs (especially of Japan in WWII...but not to trivialise other POWs) I am in awe of what they went through, how some of them survived, and the lasting impact it made on them for life. Now again I remind all that I dont find this to be a prerequisite to serving as CIC.

As for those who say that Obama is just preaching cliches without sustanance, then I can only conclude that due to a preset biad prior to it all, then you have not done minimal research. Yes he has mottos, most candidates do. Recall, Thousand Points of Light, and uniter not a divider and the worst compassionate conservative. But he, Senator Obama has listed where he stands on the issues and in many of them laid out a rough draft on how these goals can be accomplished, including financing. I live in Texas and when the primaries came around in March, the papers ran each candidates platform and as many details as they were given along with their bios, resumes, and who was endorsing them as far as public figures. Surprisingly or not Clinton and Obama were direct, to the point and even addressed how to finance things like their health care programs. McCain did not.

So it really isn't that every time we see the news he is saying Yes we can, or Change, or Hope. It is because we listen to all the parts before, after and in between.

Don H. To be specific...Senator Obama has outlined a health care plan that would be a huge help and how it could be financed. Senator Obama has made fabulous statements about affirmative action and how it should be used...not so much by race but in identifying great potential and offering it to those who are less fortunate but willing to do the hard work if given the chance. Senator Obama has spoken of offering funds for people to go to college in return for volunteer work to pay it off. And this one is such a personal favorite of mine. When being interviewed in either Kentucky or Tennessee, some media dawg started after his wife. He made it clear that she is his wife, she is not the candidate and that he would not stand for anyone attacking his wife or daughter, it showed stregnth, dignity, intelligence, and honor. I have never heard one single candidate stand up to the press when they started in on the spouse. BRAVISIMO

Ahhhhh Robert, not fair. But good try. Not speaking to the "actual" issue contained in my previous comment.
In what time frame would you place the condition where the government was performing the needs of the electorate?
I agree it is nice to have a thread where there can be disagreement without insults and name calling.
Obama has lied and/or flip-flopped on issues he has ....outlined....stated.... spoken....etc., ( Those are documented...over 60 so far.) Both candidates have taken us down the primrose on changing platform position.
However, Obama is moving so fast to the center from his previous left position that it is impossible to know where he is on issues from day to day. We are likely to see more position changes, because his original far left platform would be recognizably unelectable.

It took a little while for the robototons, or is it Republitons to crawl out from wherever they hide when they aren't tuned in to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but here they are.

If they would just sit back, close their eyes, and listen to Obama and McCain speak, without knowing the color of the skin of the person speaking, perhaps they would actually be able to hear what Obama is saying.

And Dawne, as to both being "idiots" - unfortunately that remark seems to be more revealing about yourself than the two candidates. Here's a thought experiment for you, during the 2000 election some jaded folks, like you, were saying there's no difference between bush and Gore. Let's try to role back the clock, rewrite history, and imagine where we would be today had big Al won instead of the shrub...

Well if you want to throw flip-flop around lets not forget that McCain used to be in the DNC and then "flip-flopped"to the GOP. Not to mention the statements he made and the issues he stood for 4 years ago have drastically changed too. Of course those were the days when he spoke out against shrub, said he would never side with the far right evangelicals (even mentioning one by name that he had been asked to speak at their schools commencement ceremony and how he would not do that) but he did it and has continued to do it all in the name of politics.

Is it the fact that he can raise more money for his campaign blindfolded and upside down that allows him to forego on taking the funds from the government? Because I think it is a GOOD thing that he is being financially responsible. Is it that he said that he supports the death penalty in certain cases, because remember when he said that he...oh wait, he has been saying this all along, as a mattter of fact he got a law passed in Illinois regarding this issue and not by a tiny margin either. Is it how he kept voting for the war in Iraq and then....oh wait he didn't do that. Is it how he went and told people he was not using warrantless wiretaps and he was...oops again that was shrub not Senator Obama. Is it that he made a comment, which I actually agree with and applaud him for, about when times are tough people cling to their religion and guns. And then he said he agrees with the Supreme Court ruling about the DC Gun Ban issue? Because anyone who puts two seconds of thought into the comment about clinging to religion and guns and thinks it is incorrect or insulting needs to do some real thinking here. First and foremost where is the insult? These issues are both stated in the top two bill of rights. So what is wrong with practicing your rights under the Constitution. Now I am not saying it is alright to go off the deep end here but seriously, where is the insult? And, is he wrong?

No Senator Obama is not a flip flopper. You may try to paint him as one, but it doesn't make it true. Besides can ONE person tell me a legit reason why if a person says, supports, votes for, or does something based on being lied to by the CIC, why would we not praise them for changing their stance when the truth came out? Now if other people want to go bleating merrily along while they follow each other one by one off that cliff then so be it, but quit trying to force the rest of us with you.

This is so typical; you take points; stretch them to the point of being lies and then having reassigned them to the one you dislike giggle joyfully as you burn the straw man to the ground. But the one you love can do no wrong; no evil ever comes from his lips. All his plans are wonderful and nothing stupid is ever stated. He is loved by all because it must be so.

You folks make me sick. You know what you folks deserve Obama. Two years from now don’t tell me I didn’t warn you when you realize your dream was actually a nightmare and the nightmare is now reality.

OK, Christopher. I won't tell you.
I will, however, be more than happy to tell you that you had your head up your butt back in July of '08.
One thing you ARE right about is that we DO deserve an intelligent, thoughtful man of good character, with good judgement and personal integrity in the Oval Office, i.e., a man like Barack Obama.

"Hate to say it but you're a bit off base there on the cowardice theme. The obverse of the cowardly side of the coin is courageousness, and I'm not about to credit those dudes with THAT attribute. "

That's your opinion, but it's really not based in fact. When was the last time you put yourself in a position to willingly lose your life for a cause you believed in? Have you EVER done this? I haven't, but I can only imagine the amount of courage that it must require. To ignore that this required courage serves no purpose. We don't have to like or admire what they did, but you cannot deny that it required courage, and far more of it than most people possess.




"I'm not sure that people who post under aliases on message boards are the best ones to evaluate someone's heroism or cowardice."

Are you suggesting that your real last name is "M.?"

"I don't think he's served his country all that well, to be honest. He was apparently not a particularly bright soldier, he was apparently quite reckless..."

That's a pitiful, sad statement. Maybe we should let the Gold Star families that their kids weren't particularly bright and apparently quite reckless. Maybe they should know their kids weren't heros, just unlucky and not bright. Maybe Blue Star families should know that volunteering to serve our country doesn't deserve the same respect as draft dodgers and terrorists carrying box cutters and flying planes to crash into buildings. I'll bring that up at the next meeting to support our military and fallen heros and see their response. Want to come with me?

As to the statement: "I simply don't agree that everyone that ever serves is a hero. Some have been found to be downright contemptable." I do consider our military as heros. I'm very close to that statement here in my family. But yes, some have indeed been found to be downright contemptable. All that lying to Lois Lane, changing clothes in public telephone booths, property destruction; just plain contemptable indeed!

Thoughtful article. Thanks for the chuckle.

"I don't think he's served his country all that well, to be honest. He was apparently not a particularly bright soldier, he was apparently quite reckless..."

The following information would not agree with the above statement:
Further, he was never brushed aside for advancement.
He was offered the rank of one star rear Admiral.

From: Wikipedia.


In early 1981, Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman told McCain that he was about to be selected for one-star rear admiral, but McCain declined, telling Lehman that he could "do more good" in Congress.

John McCain has received the following medals and decorations:

Silver Star
Legion of Merit with Combat V and one gold star
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star with Combat V and two gold stars
Purple Heart with one gold star
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Medal with one bronze star and Numeral "2"
Navy Commendation Medal with Combat V and one gold star
Combat Action Ribbon
Prisoner of War Medal
Navy Expeditionary Medal (Cuban quarantine)
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Cuban quarantine)
National Defense Service Medal
Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze stars

You go, Aimee!

"That's a pitiful, sad statement."

It is, isn't it? However, it's quite true.




"In early 1981, Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman told McCain that he was about to be selected for one-star rear admiral,

Read the rest of that piece, where it says that he "likely would never have made full admiral." I rest my case.




"John McCain has received the following medals and decorations:"

Goodie for him. It proves that people with fathers and grandfathers who achieved the highest pinacles of rank in the military can acquire medals.

Wrong military system, Clark. We are in the US. The AMERICAN Military. Where did you say you were from?

"Wrong military system, Clark"

Huh? Why is it that so very few of those of you on the "right" seem able to speak coherently about anything?

"Huh? Why is it that so very few of those of you on the "right" seem able to speak coherently about anything? "

It is a clear sign you have lost the battle when you resort to personal insults and attacks on those who don't agree with you... as opposed to focusing on the subject matter.

To focus on the subject:

Only 1% of the Navy population attain the rank of Rear Admiral. McCain was in that one percent. The one, overriding reason McCain and those who knew him did not encourage him to stay in the Navy and pursue the rank of Admiral was that he had always shown a love of, and flare for politics. A cardinal rule if you are seeking Admiral status is: Avoid becoming involved in political controversies. McCain, his friends and family, knew he wanted to pursue a career in politics, which would have conflicted with a Navy career. He was encouraged to pursue politics, the career he loved.

It would have been an impossibility for McCain to recieve any of the awards that were bestowed upon him because his father/grandfather were high ranking Naval officers. The process for the award of any one of these requires nominations from your supervisors, and travels through many channels on up the line, some to the office of the President, requiring approval and signatures of many, including many of higher rank than his father/grandfather.

"It is a clear sign you have lost the battle when you resort to personal insults and attacks on those who don't agree with you"

I'm not attacking anyone. It's actually a clear sign that YOU have lost the battle when you have to resort to baseless accusations, when you cannot explain your nonsensical comments.




"Only 1% of the Navy population attain the rank of Rear Admiral. McCain was in that one percent."

That's not the point at all. I don't give a rat's patooty how many make REAR admiral. This is a man who was directly in line to be HANDED the position of ADMIRAL, and would've been the Navy's FIRST third gen admiral. You think the Navy didn't WANT to give him that rank? You think they were happy knowing that he'd never make full admiral?




"It would have been an impossibility for McCain to recieve any of the awards that were bestowed upon him because his father/grandfather were high ranking Naval officers. "

Ok, then. Yes, we all know that there is NEVER any such thing as nepotism and favoritism in the military. EVERYTHING is based ENTIRELY upon merit, ALWAYS. Give me a break. Obviously, somebody's got ZERO military experience of their own.

Go Aimee!

"Ok, then. Yes, we all know that there is NEVER any such thing as nepotism and favoritism in the military. EVERYTHING is based ENTIRELY upon merit, ALWAYS. Give me a break. Obviously, somebody's got ZERO military experience of their own."

Perchance you?

"Perchance you? "

You still aren't making any sense. Do you have a problem with common English?

cathy

Here's the bottom line, ladies...

I don't care for John McCain. I used to sort of respect him, at one time, until I started to learn more about him, and began to see what he really was. I have very little respect for the man at this point. I have found him to be corrupt, dishonest, and entirely lacking in character.

When I learned what he'd said to his wife in public a few years ago, the thought that crossed my mind was that in now way would I want this person to have the power to control women's issues at all. He's a clod and a chauvenist pig. I guess the fact that he left his first wife, who'd steadfastly remained loyal to him the entire time he was in Vietnam, simply because he couldn't tolerate her appearance after a horrific car crash should've said all that I'd need to know about his regard for women, but the comment to his current wife was just astonishing to me.

He's been given an automatic free pass by the press on his military service, his corruption scandals, his constant lying, and the absurd notion that he's some sort of "maverick" that bucks his party's positions. I find that unacceptable, frankly.

He's given automatic "hero" status for his military service. Why? What did he REALLY do to earn that title? He served in battle. Ok. Lots of men and women do. Some become heroes, some do not. They are are to be commended for their service, but not all should automatically be awarded hero status, because it cheapens the value of the term.

A hero is someone who does something to put his own life in danger, in order to save someone else. I don't recall him doing that, and, in fact, based upon what I've read, it's entirely possible that he actually CAUSED the deaths of American soldiers on the USS Foresstal.

I just really don't see much about his military career that can be deemed "heroic," to be totally honest. And, I don't see how Wiki links are going to convince me otherwise, anymore than my continued comments are likely to convince you of my position.

I think it's just fine and dandy that some people automatically assume him to be a hero. I simply am not amongst them, that's all. And, frankly, what I find a bit offensive about the whole thing is that, for the most part, the people that are bending over backwards to defend McCain's hero status are the same ones who openly mocked and ridiculed John Kerry's military service, in spite of the fact that he was unquestionably a wartime hero.

"You still aren't making any sense. Do you have a problem with common English?"

I'm American. Maybe you're British?

No Cathi - you're just common.

Enslisted yet Don?

Do all 1% of the people offered the rank of Rear Admiral come from the bottom percent of their class at the Academy?

If what you say is true about him being offerred the rank of 1 Star Rear Admiral, then that's three elite groups he belongs to: 1) Bottom Percent in class; 2) Son and Grandson of Admirals; 3) 1% of all naval personnel offered position of Rear Admiral. Doesn't look like nepotism at all.

Baseless accusations? Nonsensical comments?

McCain being in that 1% attests to the fact of his individual high rating/standing.
To repeat: McCain had no desire to remain in the Navy. He made that point clear to the Navy brass, early on, before they invested anything further in him or his Navy career.
I'm not saying favoritism, nepotism doesn't exist. In this particular case there were eyes from everywhere on his upward mobility, awards, BECAUSE of his father/grandfather. McCain has written approx 14 books/pubs, some include this subject. More importantly, many books/pubs/articles have been written ABOUT McCain providing the justification, reason for the awards and accolades he has received. This man deserves our respect for circumstances of peril forced upon him, NOT because of his choosing, but circumstances over which he had no control but from which he chose to emerge as a hero. AND, not just his prisoner of war circumstance.
It is easy for those who wish to strip McCain of anything meaningful to attribute everything he has been or done to forces outside his personal characteristics.
You see, Clark, I have managed an attempt at a response without any inferences to your IQ, ability to comprehend, or the marital status of your mother and father at the time of your birth.

I don't think this country can survive being led by two "fortunate sons" in a row playing cowboy in the Wild, Wild East.

Sharon! Baby! You again! You're everywhere!

Common? You betcha! It's what America is! Thank you for the compliment! But you and Clark appear to be quite rare birds. You sure there is enough room in that phone booth for both of you?

The lack of focus on history's cycles of freedom and captivity, prosperity and downfall, pride and humility, is what causes the cycles to repeat themselves. We need to focus on history. We absolutely must learn from our past mistakes. Just looking ahead and saying, "The past is over; let's move on now" will only leave us wide open for repeat errors. Why do we teach history in public schools if we do not expect our elected "representatives" to also study history and learn from the past? Why should we want a president who is so attentive to the future that the past is but an irrelevant story? Looking both directions is important. I don't know why this is even debatable.

I doubt the author is saying to forget the past. History is important and that's a given and that's why most of us do not want more of the same because we have seen that we have been going in the wrong direction. Regardless, you are correct about learning from the past.

For him, it is surge after surge. Maybe 100 years of conflict.

McCain did not say that we would be fighting a war for 100 years, but that we might have American presence in Iraq for 100 years. How long have we had bases in Germany and just about every other country we ever invaded? Let's not be silly--or worse, malicious twisters of words.

McCain wants more of the same. Let's help deal with our dependency on oil by making oil cheaper for Americans with a temporary gas tax "holiday".

A temporary Band-Aid is better than nothing at all! I'm all for long-term solutions, but those will take years or decades to find through innovation and invention. Until we can find better ways, we need to make current ways more affordable and do whatever it takes to reduce foreign dependence on oil. Short-term fixes need to fill the time until a long-term fix is found. Or...we can just "hope" for some magic recipe to manifest itself out of thin air that can turn pine cones into fuel.

His campaign attacks his wife. The wife that Obama married and stayed with.

It's a sad state of affairs when a presidential candidate gets extra points not for acting Clintonian.

There weren't any Iraqis hijacking planes into the Twin Towers.

False logic. How many Afghanis were there? Liberals want to focus on Afghanistan. According to your logic, we should invade Saudi Arabia.

McCain can't even get on the internet nor check his email.

Neither could JFK.

Obama speaks clearly and persuasively.

Just like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, and FDR.

I am supporting Senator Barack Obama because he represents what America can be and Senator McCain is all about yesterday.

America can be whatever it wants to be. What America should and must be is a different matter entirely. The "yesterdays" of this nation have been prosperous and miraculous days. Why shouldn't we gaze upon those days lusting for the old times?

Clark Kent said:
And, frankly, what I find a bit offensive about the whole thing is that, for the most part, the people that are bending over backwards to defend McCain's hero status are the same ones who openly mocked and ridiculed John Kerry's military service, in spite of the fact that he was unquestionably a wartime hero.

Here's the difference, Clark: Kerry stabbed his nation in the back by lying about the Vietnam war effort. McCain: patriotic. Kerry: treasonous. There ya go.

TJ: McCain did not say that we would be fighting a war for 100 years, but that we might have American presence in Iraq for 100 years. How long have we had bases in Germany and just about every other country we ever invaded? Let's not be silly--or worse, malicious twisters of words.

Yeah, he really put his foot in his mouth didn't he? Shoot first ask questions later. That's the lesson we learn as to what kind of leader he would be. A leader should give thoughtful responses to serious questions especially to an overwhelming majority who think we should have never gone in in the first place.

A temporary Band-Aid is better than nothing at all! I'm all for long-term solutions, but those will take years or decades to find through innovation and invention. Until we can find better ways, we need to make current ways more affordable and do whatever it takes to reduce foreign dependence on oil. Short-term fixes need to fill the time until a long-term fix is found. Or...we can just "hope" for some magic recipe to manifest itself out of thin air that can turn pine cones into fuel.

How much time are you willing spend debating to save a few cents on the gallon on a weekend you just might spend idling the gas away in traffic or waiting in line for gas? I'm not saying it will, but it just might cost you more money.

It's a sad state of affairs when a presidential candidate gets extra points not for acting Clintonian.

It's a sad state of affairs that the right-wing feels it has to attack and spread lies about anyone's wife.

False logic. How many Afghanis were there? Liberals want to focus on Afghanistan. According to your logic, we should invade Saudi Arabia.

Your understanding of the logic is false because the point is not to attack anyone, just not to attack anyone who wasn't involved especially your attacker's mortal enemy.

Neither could JFK.

He probably could if he was alive to have experienced the internet.

Just like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, and FDR.

The only response this deserves is the one I'm giving it.

America can be whatever it wants to be. What America should and must be is a different matter entirely. The "yesterdays" of this nation have been prosperous and miraculous days. Why shouldn't we gaze upon those days lusting for the old times?

What did happen to those days? ::sigh:: Anyway the writer already acknowledged that those days are fine and that yes a "Change" to that would be perfect, just not what the Neoconservative movement has brought us to.

Here's the difference, Clark: Kerry stabbed his nation in the back by lying about the Vietnam war effort. McCain: patriotic. Kerry: treasonous. There ya go.

Kerry didn't lie at Winter Soldier. That was just a lie about him and part of the reason we call it "swiftboating". There is nothing treasonous about dissent. In fact it is treasonous to say otherwise.

Happen to catch the recent Winter Soldier? I dare you to call any those soldiers liars.

How silly of me. You would probably take that in a way that you just call them liars without knowing what they ever said. Let me rephrase.

I dare you to watch or listen to Winter Soldier and then call any of them treasonous.

SEEN THAT RECRUITER YET TJ?

You think this immoral war is so great get going.

Cathi - you aren't smart enough to dial Clark's number.

But I got yours girl.

Great! Give me a call! I'll be waiting!
Love and Kisses,
Cathi

Don, this war is going swimmingly. If my country needed my help I would oblige. My country needs me elsewhere today.


Francis, the blame game is fun, isn't it?

TJ,

You appear to be well within the range of age...perhaps you'd like to explain why it is that a faithful cheerleader of illegal wars of aggression such as yourself is sitting comfortably at home, spreading your ridiculous reichwing talking points on message boards, rather than bravely serving the country in our illegal occupation?

One of the benefits of an all volunter Army. If you can serve your country through the armed forces, that's great; if you can serve your country other ways, that's great, too. The choice is up to the individual.

"If my country needed my help I would oblige. My country needs me elsewhere today"

What a cowardly liar. The military is scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits right now, taking dimwits, gangster, racists, and criminals. Your time has arrived. Sign up and show your precious little white house boyfriend just how much you support his illegal warring.

Clark, a life of military service is not for me. I plan on serving my country as a lawyer, potentially a prosecutor or a judge. I plan on helping rid the streets of child molesters, rapists, and serial killers. If that's not a worthy goal to you, there is something wrong here, but not with me.

I have planned for a great many years that I will serve my God as a missionary at age 19. I am not backing out on that promise I made with Him. If the law requires my service, I will go, but otherwise I am not going. Like Cathi said, there are many ways to serve your country. Being on the frontlines of battle is an honorable way. So is staying on the homeland and doing good. If all patriotic people were fighting foreign wars, our homeland would be void of patriotism.

"The military is scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits right now, taking dimwits, gangster, racists, and criminals"

I have to wonder what constitutes your bottom of the barrel. Dimwits? Because someone doesn't know advanced math that makes them less of a person? Gangsters? I'm assuming you refer to our "innocent inner city youth", in which case a lot of them had no choice as to whether or not they became what they were. That makes them the bottom of the barrel because they have an opportunity to turn their life around? Racists? Bigotry is everywhere. Criminals have almost always been afforded the opportunity for military service.

Admittedly, there are bad seeds in the military, there is no denying that. But because someone who couldn't cut it as a scientist decided to join the infantry that makes him a pick at the bottom of the barrel?

Freeking coward and typical chickenhawk.
Big surprise send others to the slaughter while you pitch bs here.
You sicken me.
Yellow to the core also typical.

You want my wife's uncle's address punk.
knock some sense into that diseased head of yours.

TJ- What blame game are you talking about? Or is that some way to say something snappy without having to read or respond properly to how I corrected you?

Oh how elitist of you freaking mamas boy tj.

Grow some and enlist.

Figures that your female vulture friend buys that or is that your mommy?

Paul, (sorry I'm so far behind), my daughter corrected me on this, too: Rather than "draft dodgers" I believe it would be more appropriate to use the term "consienctious objectors". You are both correct.

But because someone who couldn't cut it as a scientist decided to join the infantry that makes him a pick at the bottom of the barrel?

No, but the fact that his "only chance" is to become a killer for his country in an illegal war is a disgrace to all of us.

"acquit McCarthy"
WTF ,he's one of your heroes?????

LOL!!!

sharon, I am an elitist because I believe that some people are predisposed to be better at certain career choices? I am not the warrior type. I am an elitist because I believe that serving my country can be done from many different places, and that I can patriotically serve my country in other ways than enlisting? I never said that I am too good to enlist. That would make me an elitist. I simply said--and maintain--that I believe I can serve my country more effectively at home.

UNTIL SOMEONE FINALLY ANSWERS THE FOLLOWING I AM DONE EXPLAINING WHY I AM NOT GOING TO ENLIST. I HAVE ASKED IT MANY TIMES, AND NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO EXPLAIN IT:

YOU SAY THAT AS A WAR SUPPORTER I AM OBLIGATED TO ENLIST.
DO ALL PRO-CHOICERS HAVE TO ABORT BABIES TO MAKE THEIR SUPPORT VALID?
DO ALL PRO-ETHANOL FOLKS HAVE TO GROW CORN?
DO ALL GAY RIGHTS FOLKS HAVE TO BE GAY?
DO ALL FREE PRESS SUPPORTERS HAVE TO PRINT A NEWSPAPER?
DO ALL CLIMATE CHANGE FREAKS HAVE TO CONSERVE ENERGY? APPARENTLY NOT -- AL GORE USES SEVERAL TIMES MORE ENERGY THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOES!
DO ALL PRO-SMOKING RIGHTS FOLKS HAVE TO SMOKE?
DO ALL PRO-ALCOHOL RIGHTS FOLKS HAVE TO DRINK?
DO ALL PRO-MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FOLKS HAVE TO SMOKE WEED?
DO ALL PRO-PORNOGRAPHY FOLKS HAVE TO VIEW PORN?
LAST BUT NOT LEAST: DID WE EXPECT ALL PRO-REVOLUTION AMERICANS TO FIGHT IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? WAS EVERY NON-LOYALIST MAN FIGHTING THE BRITS? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

UNTIL YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE IRAQI WAR FORCES ME TO ENLIST TO HAVE SUPPORT FOR IT, I AM DONE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT WHY I WILL NOT ENLIST. SO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Don, yes. Liberal revisionist history has mythically defined McCarthy as someone who was wrong, when almost all of his accusations have since been proved accurate. The liberals hated him because he was on to them. That he doesn't have a monument in DC or a federal holiday is proof of this.

Wrong again TJ. Senator Joseph McCarthy was censured for what he did because he engaged himself in a witchhunt and even got innocent people caught in his Dragnet for thoughtcrime. No revision. He was pronounced wrong THEN.

In fact your "Acquit McCarthy" slogan is an indication that you think that REVISION needs to be done.

You DO know what REVISIONIST means don't you?!

I simply said--and maintain--that I believe I can serve my country more effectively at home.

The same is true for every person over there. Now what?

How about a nice trip down history lane. Live footage of the Army-McCarthy Hearings

Note the applause at the end.

Honestly TJ, If we were in a war that I supported half as much as you seem to support this one and the military was in as much need of soldiers as it is now, I would suit up.

But then again, I'm not an elitist.