Has public discourse really been reduced to this level? "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous," Ms. Wallace said.
I'm afraid I know the answer to my own question. I don't have any reason to believe McCain "cheated," but I hope we don't get into a situation where any criticism of McCain is reduced to "attacking a former prisoner of war" (and, for that matter, than any criticism of Obama is reduced to "attacking the first African American presidential hopeful").
UPDATE: Too bad Edwards isn't a "former prisoner of war." Maybe he could have quashed the initial Enquirer investigations by pointing out how outrageous it is to suspect a former prisoner of war of cheating. Somehow, the insinuation that a multi-millionaire trial lawyer cheated doesn't sound outrageous at all.
That would also be a mistake on their part.
Since there are no significant media proxies for McCain, that pretty well leaves his campaign to do the "dirty work".
I don't like or approve of either, but the racism one is definitely worse (as it's based on a physical trait one is born with rather than heroic acts voluntarily performed), and I don't see that being abandoned any time soon...
You sound as if racism hasn't been present at all in this campaign, when we all know that isn't the case. Of course, it hasn't come from JSM, but from people supporting his candidacy. Puts Obama in a tough position--if he calls it out, he gets accused of "playing the card" by JSM, who of course has been innocent in the matter.
Sad that in this country pointing out racism is more offensive than using racism for political gain....
All right, I'll take the bait. Can you point to one example of the media screaming racisms for even a single totally non-racial attack.
By the way, if you're examples of "the media" doing this are the Huffington Post or Daily Kos, I'll withdraw the challenge, of course you can find it there.
Just asking...
The only possible answer to questions and attitudes like that is "Damn straight I am!" Unlike some posters here, I am willing to believe in integrity -- within reasonable limits -- in public officials and candidates. But it has to be demonstrated, not assumed.
Unfortunately, the pastor did not have the resources of C.O.N.T.R.O.L. and so didn't have a portable plastic Cone of Silence.
As a Christian lawyer with former and current ministry clients (but not Saddleback), I was very disappointed that Rick Warren did not verify that McCain was actually isolated from any exposure to the Obama questions and answers before representing to all (and accepting McCain's false affirmation) that was so, did not act as an honest broker, did not enforce his own rules about prohibiting stump speeches, and did not ask McCain any meaningful followup questions, as any of us with deposition experience could see. For example, "explain your moral failure in your first marriage", or "you say you are pro-life and will have a pro-life administration, other than the judicial appointments issue, what does that mean?" Accordingly, all we heard was the recitation of the right catch phrases with no examination of whether there was any meaning or understanding behind the words.
sounds like whining from someone whose great intelligence (he graduated from harvard and worked as a community organizer, dont' you know) just didn't shine through.
How about this:
What is even more egregious is Obama couldn't even refer to a McCain attack before he accused them of racism. And if you read the article you'll see that Obama's chief campaign spokesman confirms Obama was playing the race card.
Do you believe this or know this. If this is true and somebody actually quizzed the Secret Service Agents, then that is the shocking news. The Secret Service should never be put in a position where they have to tell anyone at any time what their charges were or were not doing. In fact I would assume and hope that they have a strict policy (backed by the threat of immediate dismissal) of absolutely not talking to anyone about what they see or hear in carrying out their duties.
How DARE you?! After he saved that little girl's life! Shocking, shocking, shocking.
I agree, but tell it to McCain supporters, and McCain. On the one hand he doesn't want to discuss being a POW, on the other he trots it out at every opportunity.
The guy was a POW. He was tortured. He suffered. He behaved very honorably. Does that mean that it's illegitimate to question his integrity, or the coherence of his positions, today?
What part of that statement is false?
Obama has REPEATEDLY been accused of being unpatriotic. He's also been criticized for his name. (Remember the shock-jock warming up the crowd before a McCain rally repeating "Barack Hussein Obama"?)
How is it that when Obama addresses these tactics, HE is the one "playing the race card"?
My first reaction to the campaign's POW remark was that, if being held in wretched, abusive conditions for years is the key to good moral character ...
... then we are producing some *saints* down at Guantanamo. The world probably can't handle that much goodness all at once, so we are very sensible not to release them.
I thought that the whole point of the Cone of Silence was that Max kept asking the Chief to use it even though it was consistently shown to never actually work.
I don't see why he couldn't. Here's McCain attack ad from June 27 -- a full month prior -- showing that Obama doesn't look like the Presidents on Mt. Rushmore, and that Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
Agreed and neither are Obama's apologists.
McCain can't shoot back in kind?
Of course, neither is okay, but I am not going to get on McCain's back considering Obama's behavior. Take the beam out of Obama's eye and i might worry about the speck in mccain's.
Why is it that only liberals hear the racist dog whistle?
Because it's easier to hear a whistle when you're the one blowing it.
also, if you are going to accuse someone of cheating, shouldn't you have evidence he cheated. To all the lawyers on this site, I suggest you try a small experiment by accusing the next judge who decides against you of cheating or committing ethical transgressions in deciding the motion.
Just as well, I liked your spin better. At the next tribunal, counsel for the defense has a great line waiting for him when his client's credibility is challenged.
"It is outrageous to ever suggest that Senator Obama, a black man who has battled institutional racism since his birth, would ever cheat."
It is just a rhetoric device - using one's victim status to help shield them from an attack. Anybody with an IQ over 70 should be able to readily see past it.
And rhetoric doesn't work on Americans. That's why the most sucessful politicians never use it. Same holds for skullduggery and negative campaigning.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that McCain got a few Blackberry messages in the limo to the venue telling him the questions, but so what? Obama needs to stop playing defense.
So McCain went directly from his motorcade to the stage without being in a green room for at least the end of Obama's interview?
If so that is the kind of precision and timing we need from a Commander in Chief. If not then you need to apologize for your unsubstantiated attack on McCain's honor.
1. The Obama campaign does not have proof either way about whether McCain cheated.
2. The McCain campaign has wanted to use the POW event more to their canditates advantage without annoying the general public.
My take is both candidates gave decent answers, although I preferred McCain's shorter answers to Obama's longer, more philosophical answers. The fact that "cheating" was even raised suggests to me that the Obama camp felt it necessary to cover what they misperceived as a mediocre performance--both candidates looked pretty good, IMO, but with different targets--McCain was shoring up support among evangelicals; Obama was playing defense trying not to antagonize any particular wing of his party.
It also reinforces the likability factor that McCain was able to turn the “Cone of Silence” into a joke with his “actually I was trying to listen through the wall” comment. The more the Obama worshippers try to make this into an issue, the more dour and humorless they make themselves, and by extension The Chosen One, appear.
"Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.
They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie."
The arrangement was for all of the interview.
It's not that big of a deal to say to people, "hey, look there was no cone of silence, John McCain was hanging out in his limo, we're gonna have to trust his word that he never heard any questions." That'[s Rick Warren's responsibility as host of the event vs. basically misleading people that something else was actually happening.
It's ironic that some people on this thread don't think that a church, a place of Christian worship is a site where truth should rule.
How about Bob Herbert (NY Times, is that mainstream enough) claiming that McCain's campaign inserted phallic symbols into the video of Obama speaking as racist subtext. The problem is Herbert identifies the symbols as the Leaning tower of Pisa and the Washington Monument, which of course would have no rational context in the video. The towers are actually at the site that Obama himself chose for the speech in Berlin thus were just an inevitible part of the footage of the speech.
Once again a racist dog whistle only heard by liberals.
McCain let an untruthful impression stand when he could have easily let the full truth be known.
If that's not a violation of at least the spirit of the code please enlighten us.
Yes, why would anyone need to cheat for a mere forum (not even a debate?) Yet McCain answered the 3 part teacher pay question before it was even asked. Anticipating the answer for one parter, yeah reasonable. But all 3 parts in the right order? Tied with the fact he was not restricted what reasonable person wouldn't wonder about that?
But again, unimportant - just lets those who weren't going to vote for McCain anyway that is really has gone over to the Dark Side™
So your contention is if McCain quips that: “I was trying to hear through the wall.” That unless he actually was trying to hear through the wall he was lying. And if he was not lying of course then he was cheating.
My God, and I was considering voting him. Thank you Snoey, for your public service.
As for sanctimony, if he wants to use his background as evidence of his honor, I do think that that should be considered a double edged sword.
rac·ism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
It's hardly 'racist' to falsely accuse others of racism. Obnoxious and mendacious? Sure. But so is accusing George Bush of war crimes, and yet we don't call Michael Moore a war criminal. :P
Thus, the argument is that if someone will remain in prison and continue to be tortured because it violates a Code of Conduct, then such a person likely will not violate the terms of a debate. One can debate whether this argument has merit, but it is substantially different and stronger than what's been posited here.
Put in different words, it's not his status (as a POW) but rather his conduct (refusal to violate the Code of Conduct) that's probative of his character and actions.
Excellent point. It is not simply that McCain was held in wretched, abusive conditions for years. He was, but that is about all he might arguably share in common with those held at Guantanamo. Unlike them, McCain was in uniform when captured fighting on behalf of his country, not as part of a terrorist force. And he didn't just endure the wretched, abusive conditions for years, he behaved honorably under extreme pressure and refused early repatriation when it was offered him. If anyone held at Guantanamo were in the running for sainthood, it would be the special "sainthood" envisioned by the forces of evil they serve.
It has servants of the forces of Evil. Watch out for the horns!
You have things exactly backwards. McCain first blew the dog whistle, then cried "Racist!" when they heard the echo:
1. The McCain campaign created a commercial showing that Obama looked different from the Presidents on Mount Rushmore, or the people on the dollar bills.
2. A month later, Obama pointed out that some people may be uncomfortable with him because he didn't look like the Presidents on the dollar bills.
3. The McCain campaign said "Ha, racist!" But if Obama's remark was racist, so was McCain's commercial. So McCain put race into play first.
Forget the Presidency, I'm nominating McCain for sainthood.
But now I wonder? How come the Republicans scorned McCain's many virtues in favor of the combat-averse W., back in 2000? Surely having your Daddy's friends buy you a baseball team in no way can stack up against McCain's experience and sacrifice for our country.
As long as we are being sarcastic, how about how Democrats were salivatating over the possibility of John McCain as John Kerry's running mate a short 4 years ago? Four years ago, McCain was the Democratic Party's favorite Republican (sort of the role Chuck Hagel has this year). What changed in four years?
A third-party national interjecting himself into Vietnam's civil war, McCain was an unprivileged enemy combatant, to whom none of the Geneva Conventions applied. Luckily for him, U.S. diplomats were able to convince North Vietnam that McCain should be treated as a regular POW, even though the US never declared war on North Vietnam.
The Maverick outlasted the Preacher and the Born-Again Conservative Businessman, to be anointed the Candidate.
Democrats love the underdog, never forget.
Sarcastro,
At least now I can kind of understand why Obama did not mention Islamofascism even once, not even in relation to the question of evil. I guess blowing up innocent civilians whose great sin is shopping is not evil. Taking 2 mentally handicapped women and strapping bombs on them and blowing them up by remote control in a crowded Baghdad street as happened recently, is not evil. Fighting while hiding behind and using women and children as shields, is not evil. The list goes on and on.
Silly me. Oh, and that little thing of flying planes into buildings and killing 3,000 people, not at all evil. Not to mention it is all done as civilians against civilians. Then there is the wish of Bin Laden to kill not 3,000 of us but 30,00 or 300,000 of us nest time. Nah, not evil. Of course, it is all justified by the 72 virgins. Yup, those guys down in Guantanamo are all just poor little POW's just the same as John McCain was.
These questions were not hard. I could have answered the school question as easily as McCain and the evil question as well as the other questions. These are about who you are as a human being, something we don't know much of about Obama. These come from the heart, if you know your heart and from the mind if you are not trying to appease the Teacher's Union or not offend the Far Left.
Of course McCain should never mention his service to his country nor his POW experience. I mean John "three Purple Hearts" Kerry who came riding to his convention on a boat ala swift boat, never mentioned his military service (all 4 months in combat). Nope, not once. And Obama has never mentioned his Grandfather's service in WWII because that would be going pretty far back to find someone in the family with some sort of connnection to the US Military since he has absolutely none. Nah. Let's beat up on McCain and tell him he should never mention his service. What has he done that can compare to Kerry's 4 months or Obama's Grandpa?
There are horrible stories about the evil Evil guys do, but none about what good guys do. Any stories that exist about the good guys are cause the media is Evil.
If only Obama had said that Islamonazis are evil I might not believe he was totally one of them!
Also, John Kerry is stupid, so McCain can totally be as dumb as him with no cummupance!
The Nuance is also Evil.
I venerate McCain for what he did in Vietnam. And I like McCain. But I cringe at the notion that he is somehow above reproach because of his time as a POW. His supporters have used this to fend off all manner of criticism, and apparently this is now an official line from the camp. Nobody but your straw man has argued that McCain should not mention his war record. But McCain himself has said repeatedly that he does not want to politicize that part of his bio. But how is this statement not a politicization of his war record?
Back to my comments.
When Ed Rendell, a Hillary supporter, was wringing his hands and stating that voters in PA. were "not ready" for a black man, he was talking about Democrat voters in the Presidential primary, not Republicans. This was a theme repeated in other states by different folks. You sancitmonious Democrats may want to give some thought to all this before you assume that Republicans are racist and accuse them of same.
Anybody besides me have any experience of lawsuits involving sleazy defense attorneys, sleazy defendants, and defense experts, or is such a great rarity? And though I have no personal experience of them, there are some very prosperous defense types, aren't there, perhaps attorneys like David Boies who defend big corporations?
However, we definitely know McCain cheated on his wife! [rim shot] Aw, snap!
For example, This Week (4/20/2008):
Axiom: Colbert King wrote a dumb collum.
Conclusion: Obama has never been attacked using his race.
Q.E.D. suckers!
Sarcasto, I really didn't expect that you would come up with anything but a sarcastic answer. I know, it's all relative. Obama, however, did say there was evil ie Darfur and child abuse in America. I guess he doesn't think blowing up kids is child abuse.
dr,
Of course his time as a POW does not immunize him from criticism anymore than Obama's skin color should immunize him, either. I agree completely with you. However, I disagree as to who is saying he should not mention it. I think it is a fairly common Obama and Democrat line even while Obama is mentioning his Grandpa so frequently. As I pointed out, Kerry mentioned his service so much it became a national joke. Democrats are not being remotely consistent on this is my point.
I also think there should be some proof before a charge is made. And, as was mentioned above, these are not exactly hard questions for Pete's sake that require a lot of thought.
Sarcastro, a minor quibble perhaps, by I wrote "forces of evil;" it is you who apotheosized it to "forces of Evil." But do tell us how you would characterize the likes of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed.
Brilliant!
[though I do agree that both sides have been guilty of overusing military service. Boy, do I hate that Kerry with a passion he can only dream of!]
Mac, I'm not familiar with the Obama assertion that McCain should not be allowed to talk about his time in Vietnam. I maintain that this sounds like a straw man. Can you provide specifics? To my knowledge, the person who has been most vocal in arguing that McCain shouldn't politicize his time as a POW has been John McCain.
As for Kerry, he mentioned his war record during the campaign, and was then attacked on his war record. When supporters protested those attacks, the response was "Well, he's the one who brought it up." Now, McCain is the one bringing up his war record repeatedly, and you are the one crying foul when critics question that.
If Democrats are being inconsistent here, I do not think they are alone.
Personally, I was surprised Obama did as well as he did. He is not usually very good when he doesn't have a teleprompter. He was much better than other times I have seen him speaking extemporaneously, at least when he is pressured to answer any question fairly concisely. I am genuinely not sure he knows what he believes. I think he doesn't know much about a lot of issues and tries to cover it up with varying results. He also worries about how it will play to the "Left" and the Independents. When you don't know or don't want to say what you are for, it gets a lot harder to look smart. Unless, of course, you call it "nuanced", whatever that means. I rather imagine he would much prefer to have everyone think he agrees with them and the only way he can do that is by not specifying what he believes.
Overall, I am mystified that he even brought it up unless he really thinks that he did poorly and wants to change the discussion from what he said to the "Cone of Silence".
Politics - more drama than the Olympics, and each event matter even less]
Actually, Mac, I believe it was his Great Uncle's service in WWII, not his Grandfather's.
And, Sarcastro, I'm certainly glad that neurodoc didn't mention that the International Committee of the Red Cross has representatives 24/7 at Gitmo who investigate all allegations by the detainees and have access on demand to the detainees to do so, whereas the Hanoi Hilton got 1 visit by Jane Fonda.
TT: Maybe you have a point on the "calling racism" issue. After all, it was Bill Clinton who alleged that the BHO campaign played the race card on him and Hillary, and he had BHO campaign documents showing that playing the race card was part of the strategy. Obviously JSM shouldn't believe anything Bill says, just like GWB shouldn't have believed Bill was telling the truth when he said that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to his neighbors. It seems to be pretty well established that if Bill says it, it's a lie -- so, I wonder if Bill will say that BHO would be a good President?
RE: JSM not being in the Green Room during the entire time BHO was being interviewed:
1. Fox News (which broadcast the Q &A sessions) reported that JSM could arrive that the site about mid-way through the BHO Q &A session several hours before BHO took the stage. If anyone from the BHO campaign saw a problem with that, it should have been raised before the Q &A session.
2. Warren provided both campaigns a list of the topic areas, but not the specific questions, before the Q &A sessions. Given that, his church and his book, even a law clerk who'd only completed 1L should have been able to figure out the questions Warren would ask. BHO says he wants to unite everyone -- this was his chance. If BHO was as unprepared as he appeared, then he should have spent less time body-surfing during his vacation, and more time preparing.
3. Although there are any number of legal issues raised by the Q &A sessions worthy of discussion on VC, this one is more on the level of 9/11 Truthers conspiracy theories in terms of merit.
dr,
Kerry "mentioned" his war record. Yeah, about every time he opened his mouth. And, Obama repeatedly mentions his Grandfather and WW II. I don't know why McCain should not mention or talk about his war record. It is a large part of who he is. He is far more reticent to mention it than any Democrat who actually has any military experience that I can think of. If not, then Obama should not mention that he was a community organizer and certainly should refrain from mentioning his Grandpa so much.
What is wrong with talking about it other than the Democrats have so few politicians with any military experience and so they would rather not have it discussed because it is advantage McCain?
McCain, does not, unless pressed very hard, mention his two sons who are often in theater in Iraq. He hardly qualifies as one who is using his or his sons military record. At least he has something to be proud of and to brag about, unlike Obama who can only come up with his Grandpa.
I'll point out again that DB's post did not address the question of whether or not John McCain was properly sequestered during Barack Obama's questioning. The question at hand here is whether it is proper to suggest that John McCain may have skirted the agreed-upon rules, given that John McCain was once a POW. The logic -- or lack of logic -- in the McCain camp's statement is what this thread is -- in theory -- about.
(It's also the issue that interests me most in this thread, which is why I keep trying to steer the conversation back in that direction.)
You may be right. I would have to look it up.
Mac
I don't know. I didn't say that there was something wrong with John McCain talking about his war record. As far as I know, the only people saying that are your straw man and John McCain himself.
I don't think John McCain's war record should be used as a shield against criticism, but you and I have agreed on that. And again, the point of this post was not that John McCain should never mention his time as a POW. It was that John McCain appears to be using his time as a POW as a shield against criticism -- and a totally unrelated criticism at that. I agree with DB, and I find it counterproductive. I hope McCain will stop it, and soon.
Um, because it doesn't exist?
*That* might be a good reason.
I'll grant you "twisted," though that greatly understates it, but where do you get "sad, petty little man"? "Sad" because he was apprehended, something he probably never expected? Why/how "petty" and "little"? Your choice of adjectival descriptors is more apt than saying he is "evil"?
You don't view KSM as "evil" (note not capitalized)? Anyone you can think of who does or if dead did deserve to be viewed as "evil"? If you allow the possibility of "evil" (even "Evil"), then please name some you would label as such, so we can understand the thinking underlying your comments. Or, no one ever qualifies as such, at most no more than "twisted, sad, petty little m(e)n"?
Man is not capable of pure evil, just as man is not capable or pure love or pure sloth. We're too complex for that. Too many conflicting impulses. To define a man by only one act does a disservice to all men. Hitler loved his dog, etc.
I capitalize evil when I'm being sarcastic to satarize how many view it as some sort of monolithic entity, deserving of proper noun status.]
I'll confess that conspiracy theories tend to bore me. I am, however, very interested in the bases that JSM and BHO will make Supreme Court nominations -- since, eventually those sitting on the Court will likely make decisions that affect the practice of law. I'm also interested in their respective health care plans, since those will likely affect my pocketbook. However, whether one person or the other had to be in Warren's Green Room and sequestered during the entire Q &A session of the other is an organizational detail that the JSM and BHO campaign staffers should have worked out in advance. If they didn't, then there is no basis for complaint or accusation.
I think this thread shows that this is a forlorn hope.
The question here is: Is John McCain using his former-POW status as a shield against any and all criticism? Mac and I think so, as does DB. And as Sarcastro points out, the standard response to the question by McCain's supporters appears to be to point off into the distance and shout "What's that?!" and hope we all forget what we were talking about. I won't impugn motives to your comment to me, but I note that you're doing what Mac has done: you're addressing me directly on issues that I have not even touched on.
Again: I like McCain. I think his performance while a POW makes him a hero. But when he starts using his POW experience to deflect unrelated criticism, it nauseates me. I've seen his supporters doing this quite a bit. I hadn't seen McCain's own campaign do it so egregiously before now. It bothers me a lot.
Sorry. Impute. Heh.
Came here to say that. Cheating in a debate is unthinkable but breaking sacred vows to bone some hot, rich woman, well...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/kylemarshall
Obama's campaign will do the same on the race issue.
We'll have to listen to them whine and some of us will get so annoyed we'll vote for the candidate that whines the least, if it isn't trumped by some stronger bias or policy preference. But if the critical demographic of the election comes down to the racially sensitive veteran vote, then the McCain and Obama campaigns will be justified in waging the whole campaign over these couple of thousand voters.
Otherwise they'll spend the whole campaign annoying us for no reason.
I'm pretty sure that by now for all values of x, x allows the campaign to highlight the POW issue.
For those folks who are going on here as if McCain's entirely honorable conduct as a POW serves as a credential for virtue and candor, have a clue.
dr wrote:
dr, if I have addressed you on issues you have not touched on, I do apologize. If I made an error it was due to hasty reading and certainly not done deliberately.
I am inclined to cut McCain some slack due to his military background as being called a liar and cheat has a different meaning to a military man (or woman) than to the rest of us. I know it is hard for us to imagine taking honor and integrity seriously in this day and age, but it is quite different in the military. And no, I am not saying that all military people are perfect, etc., so please let us not go there. However, McCain is my Senator and I don't necessarily even like him for the same reasons other Republicans don't like him. However, if the man gives his word, I do believe him which is why I am listening very closely to what he says. That can't be said of most politicians. I think his outrage is justified. I don't think his POW status does or should have anything to do with it. I have not heard McCain say anything himself about this. Has anyone else?
As to his first wife, how can any Democrat bring this up after Bill Clinton?
Also, why is Obama's campaign calling McCain a liar? What is their proof? That is an equally good question as is whether McCain should be shielded because of his POW status.
To make dr happy and to make amends, DB asked if this is going to be the reaction from the McCain camp to any criticism from now on? DB has not said, as some have implied, that McCain has done this before now. I think it is the cheating charge that leads to the military and POW recall and I don't think you will see it every time McCain is criticized. He has certainly not used it before he began running for President and he has definitely taken a lot of criticism, from me included, and not brought up the POW thing. If he or his campaign has used it before, I don't recall it. Do you have specifics dr or does anyone else?
Bottom line dr, I think if he is not called a liar and a cheat again, I don't think we will hear the POW thing again. I think we will hear the racism charge ad nauseam to any criticism of Obama before this election is over and with a vengeance if Obama loses the election.
Personally, on policy, McCain's POW status is meaningless to me. As a matter of integrity, I understand McCain's anger. I don't think he has used it in the past and I don't think he will in the future, to answer DB's question. The color of Obama's skin is equally meaningless to me. However, any criticism of his policy is likely to be met with charges of racism.
At least now I can kind of understand why Obama did not mention Islamofascism even once
Um, because it doesn't exist?
*That* might be a good reason.
Oh, good grief, Anderson. Go read that Wikipedia thing again. And, just because a few university pinheads and CARE don't like the term hardly means it does not exist. Who do you think caused the big holes in the ground where the twin towers stood and in the wall of the Pentagon?
Come up with another name, if you like. Personally, I'll get upset about Muslims and university types not liking the term Islamo Fascism when Muslims and university profs get upset about the beheading of journalists, soldiers and anyone else the Islamo Facists don't like, not to mention the indiscriminate killing of civilians be they Iraqi, Israeli, American or whatever. Good Lord, even the Sunni's in Iraq have turned against them with a passion.
What, Anderson, shall we call them? Poor, petty misguided muslim men seeking 72 virgins? (Why do the women do it? Do they get 72 male virgins?)
Re Obama's relative who fought in WW II. We are both right and the confusion is understandable. This from The Causus which is the NY Times Politics blog in an article by Jeff Zeleny.
You mean CAIR (Committee on American Islamic Relations), don't you? Those apologists for terrorists and terrorism (CAIR) should not be confused with CARE, the international huminatarian relief organization. Otherwise, you are quite right about objections to "Islamofascism" when referring to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda types. Leftwingers don't hesitate to use the "fascist" label for Republicans, but they get very exercised if it is used to describe those who employ terrorism in hopes of establishing a new Caliphate.
These "conversations" would be more productive without the unrelenting sarcasm. Why not try making a serious contribution to them every now and then.
I understand that they get -- wait for it -- their husbands . Those who are single get to choose husbands from a pool of available bachelors. I guess that's why so few married women martyr themselves.
Personally, I would wonder whether the seventy two virgins sign up because they can't get a date any other way.
-dk
neurodoc,
Thank you. Yes, I did mean CAIR, not CARE. I was obsessing over whether to use don't or doesn't and debating whether my subject was singular or plural i.e. is or are "a few univerity pinheads and CAIR" singular or plural? . I am still not sure if I got that part right but I think it takes the plural verb as I wrote. At any rate, CAIR slipped by me in that debate. Thanks again.
Leftwingers also, don't hesitate to use the word hate. But it can only be used when applied to Bush, Cheney and any other Republican or even to Blue Dog Democrats, as I learned from the WSJ today.
Mac, that's just plain false. As of 2005 there were more House and Senate Republicans with military experience, but to say that there are "few" Democrats with military experience is not right at all. It's all well and good to defend McCain's service, but at least have the decency not to impugn the service of others.
Well, my impression is that Democrats make a huge deal of any one of them if they actually have military experience, One was not supposed to criticize Murtha I recall quite well because he had been a Marine so I guess that made it OK to trash the US Military. As I said above, Democrats are not consistent on this point.
I am willing to stand corrected. I don't want to impugn the service of others. You are quite right that it would be wrong to do so. I know there are some former military who won in 06 who are Democrats, so that had to up the numbers. However, you say I am wrong to say there are only "a few" and you may be right. I was speaking from my impression, not facts, I will admit. How many Democrats are there with Military experience?
www.whoserved.com
As far as I'm aware, the worst smearing of John McCain's military service has come from some of the same people who smeared John Kerry.
Your claim that the GOP is way ahead on this point is simply false. Here's some data to add to what others have posted.
These prominent Rs never served: Hastert, Armey, DeLay, Blunt, Frist, McConnell, Santorum, Allen, Lott, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, Gingrich, Shelby, Kyl, Cornyn, Doolittle, Chambliss, Kemp, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Pataki and Schwarzenegger. And Guiliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson. And Jeb Bush. Let's also not forget George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, Rush, Savage, Kristol, Hannity, Scalia and Thomas. Joe Lieberman fits on this list, too.
On the other hand, there are many prominent D who served. Like the guy who founded Daily Kos, for example. And Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale. And Gephardt, Daschle and Gore. Tom Harkin and Charlie Rangel. Also James Carville and Randi Rhodes. More names listed here and here.
Most Iraq veterans who ran for congress in 2006 ran as D.
And troops are donating more to Obama by a factor of 6-to-1.
By what standard did he not win the format? He actually answered the questions asked and with more consideration for the complexities of the issues than did McCain.
Of course, if you are not interested in much beyond ancedotes and soundbites, then you may see it differently.
I think he mentions it on a regular basis. I decided to look for transcripts of his town-hall meetings. I was able to find just one complete transcript. Sure enough, it's in there. It was his closing:
Tom Kirk lives in Colorado, where this town hall took place, but he hadn't previously been mentioned.
Another reference point. On the web page showing his official campaign bio, he shows six photos summarizing his life. Two of those six show him as a POW. And three of the other four include some kind of military reference (him in uniform, his son in uniform, or his grandfather in uniform).
His web site is also packed with references to his POW experience.
So I don't know why you're claiming he hasn't "used it."
Spokesman for Minister Says McCain, Obama Were Told of Some Topics.
I would like to know why Obama's thousands of advisors could not provide him with sufficient background on the topics.
Dear TC: This is a clear violation of the DoD Joint Ethics Regulation, and the statutes it implements -- by the Sailor. Although I question the wisdom of the BHO campaign allowing the picture to remain posted -- since it puts one of its supporters at risk of sanction -- the BHO campaign is not subject to the regulation and statutes, the service member is, so I don't see that the campaign has violated any legal standard.
Dear Elliot: Last night Rev. Warren appeared on Hanity &Colmes. Despite their annoying habit of both of them making speeches framed as supposed questions, Warren was able to say a few things.* He said that right before the Q &A sessions he met with BHO and JSM and told them the questions he would ask -- having only provided topics before then. Because JSM arrived later, he was not present when he told BHO of one particular question, so JSM didn't know about that particular question. Warren explained that he didn't want to hit them cold with questions, since he thought they'd give better answers if they had a few minutes to think about their answers before the specific questions were asked. As this wasn't a debate and the object was for the candidates to talk about their believes, plans, etc., that seems like it was a reasonable idea (at least to me, I'm so tired of "Gotcha" journalism).
*But for this post and the fact that the "teaser" said that Warren would be on H&C and address the question, I wouldn't have watched. (My spouse says I need to "calm down" since whenever H or C opens his mouth, my first reaction is to shout "Shut up! Damn it!" IMO the program would be greatly improved by permanently silencing both hosts, and just letting the guests talk about whatever they want to talk about).
You are correct, MAC. I learned last night that BHO's grandfather served under Patton in Europe. His Great Uncle was also a WWII vet, and allegedly locked himself in the attic for several months after he was discharged from service. When the death camps were liberated, Eisenhower ordered that all troops in the European theatre tour at least one of them so see what the Nazis had done -- even in those days there were Holocaust deniers. It isn't clear whether BHO's Great Uncle was part of the 6th Armor Division troops that on April 11, 1945 "liberated" Buchenwald, itself, or one of the feeder or sub-camps (Buchenwald had 174 sub-camps). But, the horror would have been one of scale between the main and sub-camps. See Horrific Discovery at Buchenwald, WWII History Magazine (Oct/Nov 2008). And, even if he didn't "liberate" one of the camp, he toured one. There's an unconfirmed story that Patton became ill while touring Buchenwald. If it turned Old Blood &Guts' stomach, the effect would be more on someone who hadn't seen what he'd seen.
Dear dr:
I'm not sure that you, MAC, or I, or quite a number of other posters are that far apart. JSM's vet and former PW status doesn't shield him from legitimate criticism, any more than BHO's race shields him. But, I think that Kazinski is closer to the truth:
This is par for the course in political campaigns. Does it bother me when that is done? Sure. It's clutter when I'm trying to get accurate information. I want to know what makes these guys tick. I'm much more concerned when a candidate does it. Example: Michelle Obama made some speeches that clearly addressed policy matters. This made her a target -- and, I agree that not all of the criticisms were legitimate. But, when you start speaking on substantive issues in a political campaign, that's what happens (so, you'd better have a thick skin). BHO complained about that, and said that his wife was not an issue, and, she stopped making speeches addressing substantive issues (and generally the discussion of her stopped). However, during the Q &A session with BHO, when asked to name 3 people he'd look for advice, one of them BHO named was "Michelle". (The others are Senators, who have long public records, and I can look up their positions and how much BHO has sought advice from them in the past -- and, they are in the public eye). If BHO names his wife as one of his advisors (not illogical, she is a Princeton (Honors) and Harvard Law grad, and so obviously no ditz), then he's inserted her into the public examination and debate. He can't have it both ways -- if she's someone he'll turn to for advice, then she's an issue in the campaign, and not off limits. I don't see Cindy McCain as an issue, since all she'd done is smile, shake hands and make the traditional spousal powder puff type speeches. If she starts addressing policy issues, then she's a campaign issue, too.
Getting back to the specific part of this thread, however, dr, we do disagree on one point. Until/ unless someone comes up with some evidence that JSM "cheated", this strikes me as a typical, generally baseless, conspiracy theory. Last night, Warren said that the allegation was "bogus." He also said that someone had been calling around to news organizations and reports and saying that JSM had watched BHO's questions and responses. The real story to me is who is responsible for the allegations (especially if it is someone actually connected to one of the campaigns). And, even if not someone connected to a campaign, I'd like the person(s) doing so identified, since it tends to discredit them as sources in the future. There's enough rumor mongering in our "news media." Identifying unreliable sources helps me evaluate whether what is reported are, in fact, facts.
(1) it was known by everyone involved that McCain would be traveling to the meeting during the first part of Obama's side. Thus is wasn't a breach of his agreement to do so.
(2) McCain did spend a good part of the Obama side of the event in the green room; thus the remark about listening at the wall --- which was a joke, for crying out loud --- was not an untruth and doesn't voiolate the honor code.
(3) McCain knew the basic thrust of all the questions, and the first several specific questions, beforehand. As did Obama. Given the basic areas of questioning, and a campaign staff to ring the changes, any Middie would have figured out and trained for all the likely permutations. Hell, I did the same when I was preparing to be JROTC Honor Cadet in 10th grade. Nor did *any* of his answers have anything new or surprising in them; many were from his regular stump speeches. If anything, McCain was overtrained --- he was very quick with his answers. You couldn't do that in a half hour in the greenroom.
As far as the "former prisoner of war" thing, well, a campaign spokesperson can't always be compeltely clear in every sound bite. Personally, I suspect that if macro-expanded that phrase here stands for "a former prisoner of war who has such a stick up his ass about honor that he turned down a chance to be repatriated early, even though he'd been tortured and crippled and expected correctly to be tortured again for his refusal". Remember this is the guy whose integrity was a watchword when he was agreeing with Feingold and pursuing Abramson.
Of course, the easy solution here would be for Obama to take up McCain's challenge for more debates and town hall meetings.
Well, given Warren's comments, it looks like this whole thing was a totally bogus attack on McCain. I am with wfjag, who started it?
I would add, why did the Obama campaign run with this? They had to know the truth since they were a part of the process. It seems extremely dishonest to me. If Obama wins, I hope he has better advisors than this would demonstrate.
jukeboxgrad wrote:
,
You are confusing two issues. I have maintained all along that McCain has every right in the world to mention his military service and his POW experience all he wants. That is how I got into trouble by opening my mouth, so to speak, and not looking up how many Democrats had served. I am aware that there is young blood that are combat veterans who got elected in 06 and mentioned that above. However, they seem to be more of the Blue Dog Democrats of my youth and the Far Left base of the party is not at all happy with any of them including the combat vets as they are actively trying to get them defeated. I will try to find the story. I read it yesterday and can't locate it now.
However, back on topic, the issue is should McCain use his POW status as a means of deflecting criticism? The answer is no. Is he free to talk about it? Of course, just as Obama can talk all day about being a Harvard grad, community organizer and so on. Why in the world should he not talk about his military and POW experience, especially in a town hall meeting with a fellow POW? You are acting as if this is sinful, or something. One would think it just might be mentioned.
Floridian wrote:
So let me get this straight, if you have no real idea what Obama means and what he will do and he doesn't seem to either, that is not understanding the complexities of the situation? Got it. Apparently, this is the new spin as I have heard the word "nuanced" repeatedly on NBC and MSNBC when discussing Obama. If he is unclear, you the ignorant listener is to blame for not being up to his level.
Could be trouble. The vast unwashed rather like to have some idea what their President is talking about. I don't think the notion that we are too ignorant is going to fly. We may be, but I don't think we like to be called stupid and then vote for the guy.
And, I just have the feeling that Obama is trying very hard not to alienate anyone which he just might do if he gets specific and folks actually know what he means. I think it is called pandering. Also, he may be finding out that talk of UNITING is well and good, except that someone has to change their mind if we are to be UNITED.
Dear MAC: According to Howard Kurtz, Andrea Mitchell (NBC News) received a call from unidentified BHO Campaign Staffers who made the allegation and provided no evidence to support the charge. See fishbowlDC blog on www.mediabistro.com "Kurtz: Mitchell Gave Obama Campaign 'Free Shot' At McCain" (Mon., Aug. 18, 2008). So, it appears to be an orchestrated effort from the BHO Campaign, which some might regard as a smear campaign.
jukeboxgrad: Loved your argument -- did you actually read the story, or did you expect that no one else would? Let me quote the facts underlying your gee-whiz statistics -- from the article:
It looks like your gee-whiz statistics involve under 1,500 people total. Not exactly a breathless endorsement for anyone.
Thank you for the information. I am not surprised it was NBC whom they called and who went with the story. NBC should come under campaign restrictions as they are so much for Obama they don't even maintain the pretense of objectivity. Their election "news" should come under the heading of free advertising for Obama. You may recall Hilary complaining about them, as well. Saturday Night Live got it right.
Even so, why did they not call Warren and check this out? How pathetic. And they claim FOX is biased? I will check out the web site later. Thanks again.
I'm not sure that NBC or the other "news" agencies are "biased" in favor of BHO (Chris Matthews being an obvious exception). I think they are just plain lazy and quite arrogant: "Quick, report the 'scoop.' Astroturfing only fools other people. Actual fact checking is for other people, since I'm too smart to be taken in by any of those tricks that have fooled others. I'm a PROFESSIONAL reporter!"
I have to disagree. I think they are so far in the tank for Obama they have gone beyond the pail even for CBS and ABC. They were awful when it came to Hilary vs. Obama. I think they are extremely biased and lazy. However, I am not sure that they just thought they could not be fooled. Complicit comes to mind.
I have a remote control that changes the channel at the push of a button. Really cool.
The same people who are complaining that NBC is Obama-biased would be arguing that this version also proves NBC's Obama bias. ("What does she mean, 'McCain people must feel he didn't do so well?' What is she talking about, 'Obama seemed so well-prepared?'") The certainty of the bias exists first and the analysis proceeds backwards from there.
As for any implication of cheating, there'd be no indignation about the accusation, just a flat assertion that if you can't prove Obama didn't cheat, then he probably did.
True. But, not as much fun as yelling at those clowns.
LM wrote:
LM didn't you read wfjag's post? They both knew the questions before. The whole thing was bogus and Obama's people knew it was bogus when they made the cahrge as they were part of the process. It's not that hard.
That's a different question. Until I see quotes, I have no idea what Obama's people actually said. Read the N.Y. Times article linked in DB's post for what seems like a very plausible explanation involving no accusations apart from Rick Warren having misled the audience into believing McCain was sequestered during the entire Obama segment.
My point was different. It goes to NBC's purported bias, not what Obama's people knew or when they knew it. Looking at the Mitchell quote I revised, it's easy to imagine you guys making the argument I suggested, if the shoe was on the other foot.
The funny thing about my "gee-whiz statistics" is that they involve a larger sample than most national election polls (like those listed here). Nevertheless, those polls are relied upon as an indicator of the views of millions of voters who weren't polled. Even though sometimes only a few hundred voters are surveyed. Gee-whiz! Then again, it's possible you think this particular sample isn't representative and shouldn't be trusted. You just haven't explained why.
Really? Do you have any proof for that assertion? Warren said this to the audience:
Warren was clearly indicating that McCain was in the building, even though he wasn't. And Warren believed McCain was in the building. He said so (video):
You should explain why Warren thought McCain was in the building, and announced that to the audience, if "it was known by everyone involved that McCain would be traveling to the meeting during the first part of Obama's side."
Wrong. Watch the video of Warren that I just cited. He says that they knew the topics, but not the questions. With the exception of a couple of questions.
I didn't have any trouble understanding what Obama meant and I don't he did either.
It would be nice if all the problems we faced could be solved by tough talk alone; that there were no trade-offs in making decisions, whether on abortion, education or national security. I would rather have a president who thought through the issues confronting this nation rather than blundering ahead with a swagger in the manner of our current president.
Look what that has gotten us.
If you accept Bush's definition of "torture," then McCain wasn't tortured.
I know. What you haven't done is explain why the self-selection would create a bias that favors Obama.
McCain wrote in Faith of Our Fathers:
H/T.
You all have it WRONG.
It was a "Cohn" of silence. The Joo is still trying to keep the Black Man down!
Typical White Person at work.
You mean the people who ran the camps?
1. For some basic statistics on polling, including the problem of self-selection, see the PBS site, the Savvy Voter, "Analyze a Poll" at www.pbs.org/elections/savvyanalyze.html
Among other things, it briefly summarizes the 1936 poll which concluded that Alf Landon would beat FDR in a landslide. The poll suffered from both selection bias and self-selection bias.
2. One reason that BHO may be raising more money from the military is ethically questionable fund raising. See Washington Times, LETTER TO EDITOR: No politics in the military (Sun., Aug. 10, 2008) on www.washingtontimes.com which concludes:
The questionable ethics involve at least an appearance of improper command influence, that arises when the spouses of senior NCOs and Officers "invite" the spouses of junior Soldiers to participate. As noted in the Savvey Voter article, self-selectees tend to be more motivated and committed to a candidate or cause. This is especially dangerous when a command relationship exists between the self-selectee or spouse, and someone junior in rank "invited" to participate or the spouse of the junior person.
3. Finally, as noted before, the article you linked to is nothing more than gee-whiz statistics. Less than 1500 people who have contributed around $100,000 means essentially nothing unless the controls for statistically valid measurements were in place in advance. They weren't. No valid conclusions can be drawn. If you had even a basic knowledge of sampling, polling or statistics, you would have known that, so your "6 to 1" assertion is entitled to the response "Gee Whiz! That means nothing!"
jukeboxgrad wrote:
Dear jukeboxgrad,
"Until you see quotes." I guess the facts are not going to persuade you. Not nuanced enough, I suppose. OK, fine. Go look them up. There is a lot to be said for self guided study.
That was me, not jukeboxgrad. Which facts do you have in mind? All I've seen is Andrea Mitchell's impressionistic account of what some Obama people said. Are you aware of anything more specific?
The person you cited showed no proof that any rules or ethical guidelines were broken. The legitimacy of what BSFO is doing is explained here. Your 'logic' is basically this: 'we're losing, so the other side must be cheating, and we're going to make that accusation even though there's no proof.' Not impressive. Also, here you can read about the BSFO policies, which include this:
In other words, their policy is explicitly to avoid doing what you accuse them of doing. And you've presented no evidence that they're violating their policy. Also, the rise in military money for Dems was evident before BSFO existed. That's documented here.
You're ignoring some important data. The source data is here. There are two tables. The second table lists 2,991 contributions totalling $1.4 million. In that table, Obama isn't ahead by 6-to-1, but he's still ahead by a comfortable margin.
This data is more meaningful than a poll because it's a census, rather than a sample. The numbers include everyone in the military who donated over $200. It's not a sample of that group (subject to the potential errors of sampling). It's 100% of that group. Aside from a hollow claim about allegedly unethical fundraising, you haven't offered any hypothesis for why these service-members would give significantly more to Obama than they did to McCain. But they did. That's a fact, and your arm-waving about "statistically valid measurements" doesn't change that fact.
Funny you should mention that. You made a false statement ("they both knew the questions before"). I showed proof that the statement is false. But "I guess the facts are not going to persuade you."
We will have to agree to disagree. Much has been reported on the issue of questions. If you choose not to read it, so be it. Arguing any further is pointless.
My apologies. You are correct. I attributed your quote to jukeboxgrad.
Nice job tossing out a vague generality while offering no proof whatsoever. Warren is on video, here, saying this (at 2:24 into the clip):
Warren goes on to explain that he gave them advance notice of the topics, but not the specific questions (aside from a couple of exceptions that he noted).
Hmm, let's see. What a challenging dilemma. On the one hand, a guy on the internet named mac said this:
Of course, our friend mac offers this much proof to back up his claim: none whatsoever. On the other hand, someone named Rick Warren is on video explicitly saying this:
Tough choice. Who should we believe?
I've read 100% of the proof that you presented. It didn't take me long.