AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > July > 25 > Entry
Is military service a campaign asset?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The Republican machine may not love their presumptive nominee, but there’s one area in which John McCain tickles their fancy: his military experience. It’s hard to argue with years in a POW camp for guts that deserve glory. It’s already brought him the title of American Hero. Will it bring him the American presidency as well?
The “GOP-at-any-cost” rightwing media sure hopes so. Gen. Wesley Clark’s recent suggestion that McCain’s wartime experience might not translate into presidential aptitude drew howls of protest from Fox and friends. Funny, this same crew had quite a different take on the issue when Vietnam vet John Kerry was running.
Typical of the view then was conservative columnist Thomas Sowell’s query about Kerry: “Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he did all the things he said he did…How does that qualify anyone to be President of the United States?” Columnist Kathleen Parker was even more blunt in her assessment of Kerry: “Given that military service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office…it’s time to dismount this jackass.”
In-the-trenches service doesn’t always correlate to White House accomplishment, even on military matters. Polio didn’t hurt Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ability to contribute to the Allied Victory of World War II. Decades later, “draft-dodger” Bill Clinton fought conventional wisdom in Kosovo by eschewing ground forces, resulting in an air power strike that stopped a genocide in less than three months with only two NATO casualties. On the other hand, Gen. Eisenhower’s application of military strength while in office is still under scrutiny and Kennedy, the heroic commander of PT-109, sowed the seeds for a bloody quagmire in Vietnam.
Our nuanced view of the relationship between military service and the Oval Office was evident in a recent poll: Overwhelmingly, participants saw McCain as more of a “commander in chief.” They then declared that Barack Obama would do an equally good job of turning the situation around in Iraq. A contradiction? Perhaps, but one that shows military service is just one piece of the electability puzzle, even in wartime. McCain may seem more “commander-like” to those being polled. Yet when another type of poll closes in November, we may discover that Obama seems more presidential.
Rebuttal
A 2006 Gallup Poll found that John McCain’s 22 years of military service, including his endurance as a prisoner of war, is what people most admired about him. While never a John Kerry supporter, I personally admire that he volunteered for Vietnam. And at the 2004 Democratic convention, Gen. Wesley Clark lauded that as a presidential qualification, adding “members of our armed forces embody the best of America’s values: service, sacrifice, courage, compassion.” Evidently, Kerry’s service prepared him to be commander in chief, but McCain’s didn’t.
In a superlative article, “The McCain Doctrines,” Matt Bai identified one whispered liberal belief behind that distinction: that since McCain spent five of his military years isolated in a prison camp, he “did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel.” Apparently, five years of torture didn’t qualify.
Most Americans think otherwise. Obama is a likeable candidate, but in a war on terror likeability takes a back seat. Military experience becomes one of McCain’s greatest campaign strengths — and one of Obama’s greatest weaknesses. The June Gallup poll Andy mentioned found that 80 percent of Americans believed McCain can “handle the responsibilities of commander in chief;” only 55 percent believed Obama could.
Obama’s recent Iraq trip was a television bonanza - the basketball clip was a brilliant idea — but also revealed his lack of military acumen. On “Hardball,” Andrea Mitchell explained that, in an unprecedented move, no journalists traveled with Obama, and none of the questions he answered were from the press - she called them “fake interviews.” She explained, “There’s a real press issue here……we’ve not seen a presidential candidate do this…ever before.”
CNN senior analyst David Gergen also criticized Obama for “meddling” with Iraqi policy, saying “We only have one president at a time. He’s the commander in chief and negotiator in chief….I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s underway with another party outside the country.”
When choosing the first new commander-in-chief since 9/11, to protect them from very real threats, Americans will look at someone with years of military experience and someone making rookie mistakes, and will likely realize they simply can’t afford the rookie. No matter how likeable he is.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this
Can I just say THANK YOU, LADIES, for finally (FINALLY) addressing something that has nothing to do with religion or nekkidness!!! We the board irregulars appreciate it.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
I’m not really sure I understand what Shaunti’s problem was with the Obama military meeting. Andrea Mitchell got her knickers in a twist because there was no press pool or press conference - instead, he focused on actually MEETING members of the service and talking to THEM, rather than having canned media events. Here’s her quote from Hardball in its entirety:
Let me say something about his message management. He didn’t have reporters with him. He didn’t have a press pool. He didn’t do a press conference while he was on the ground either on Afghanistan or Iraq. What you’re seeing is not reporters brought in, you’re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questioned by the military and what some would call fake interviews because they’re not interviews with a journalist so there’s a real press issue here. Politically it’s smart as can be, but we’ve not seen a Presidential candidate do this in my recollection ever before.
ah. I see. so, only questions from teevee journamalists count as important … not questions from the media, itself.
and what exactly does this have to do with Obama’s possible role as CiC? from what I can tell, he’s actually showing them MORE respect by NOT treating them as press props. but, hey, that’s just my opinion.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
I’ll second that!
on topic…I have to agree with certain parts of BOTH views. Military service is certainly deserving of respect but…it doesn’t automatically endow you with the qualities needed to be President. Leadership may be learned in many places, but competence and good judgement are inate.
Is military service an asset? Well, it sure doesn’t hurt. Is not having served in the military a liability? I wouldn’t think so.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
rats … ah. I see. so, only questions from teevee journamalists count as important … not questions from the media, itself. should read:
ah. I see. so, only questions from teevee journamalists count as important … not questions from the MILITARY, itself.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
I want to hear from a liberal who is a career veteran, who has seen combat in a war zone, state that he/she is comfortable with Obama as their leader. I want to understand how 143 days in the Senate and only experience as a community organizer of entitlement handout programs in South Chicago qualifies Obama for any role in military leadership.
I am a Vietnam veteran and a retiree with 35 years of military service and I would not follow this wonder boy to the latrine. We have a war to fight, a nation to protect against a very resolute enemy who is intent on putting our citizens in harm’s way and a way of life to protect for it’s electorate. What the hell are we thinking?
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Mara -
Military service is certainly deserving of respect but…it doesn’t automatically endow you with the qualities needed to be President.
I couldn’t agree more - I’m related to 5 people who serve(d) in 2 of the 4 branches (no Navy or Marines) and I have 4 people I count as very good friends (all of whom who were in the Marines) … as much as I love all of them and respect their service, there is only one of them that I would consider voting for President … and he’s one of the LEAST “military” of the bunch!
By Chilao
July 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Perhaps, but one that shows military service is just one piece of the electability puzzle, even in wartime.
Excellent! Prior military service is certainly helpful, but not the One-All. And can we point out that FDR was A*’t Secretary of the Navy earlier, before becoming President? (re)learned it on PBS just the past few weeks.
I can hardly translate Obama’s meeting with Iraqi leaders as “negotiating a war* regardless of what they may have talked about.
I think the American public wishes to elect a President whose foreign policy preference is something other than Bomb Bomb Bomb so we’ll see.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
As a women who has never served, I have a hard time with this issue. I was “of military age” in the Viet Nam years. First, a long military career shows service and perserverence. In a peace time military, it is just a career choice for many. I am sure it is something other if the person is a combat officer dealing with readiness issues. However, an officer learns first to take orders, not give them. The military is very structured. I don’t see how that prepares a person to lead in the turbulent reality of leading the country. Civilian life is very unstructured. People do not do what you tell them just because you are a superior. A single tour during wartime carries no weight with me. For example, draft doger Bill is just a normal guy in that period. No one wanted to go to Viet Nam, many guys found ways not to go; often less honorable, and most of the general populace did not approve of the war. At least we are not blaming the troops for this war. That others served in “safe” positions also does not bother me. Any parent would have protected their son if they could. Since that period, the military has been one of many career choices.
Note: my personal opinion is that every citizen should serve three years in the military. I think it would strengthen our citizenry dramatically. Those years from high school to about 22 years are wasted on many kids. Three years away from home in a semi-supervised situation would help them mature and allow them to do it without driving parents nuts. I am not saying we would funnel all those kids into combat situations. But the numbers would better allow the military to focus combat specialists on those issues.
Back to the issue of whether military service helps or hinders our candidates; I think not. McCain might have returned to a lack luster career if he had not been shot down. Who knows. Obama steered into politics. I think his leanings make him think of the military as a necessary evil, but something he would rather went away. With an ample dose of Hope, we will all magically get along.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
I agree strongly with Ray that Obama is not qualified to be President. It has nothing to do with whether he has served in the military. If we added a tour of duty, or even acadamy grad to his resume’, he still would not qualify.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
And as stated last week, if you do not have actual top down experience it really does not apply. It may make people feel more secure, but that is a false security.
What matters more to me is someone who can keep an open mind, synthesize information, convey that information to the people and right entities, and be a good PR person here and abroad.
The synthesizing info part is especially important, but now has become a bad thing refered to flip-flopping. Also as stated before: What the heck is wrong with adjusting your position on a subject as you get more info!?! Isn’t that the very essence of what we call learning and learning from your mistakes?
By Fisher
July 25, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
wait, so since the republicans got us into an endless war on terror, we have to vote in someone with military experience? where was bush’s experience? how was he qualified? just being a war hawk does not automatically make one qualified to lead. even being in the military doesnt qualify. mccain was 5th from last in his class at navy (out of close to 900). the only reason he ever advanced in the military was because of the influence of his father and grandfather. never in his military career was in a position of leadership. while his service is definitely admirable, i dont see how it makes him any more qualified than another candidate.
on that topic mccain has shown a horrible grasp of basic facts in the ‘war on terror’ and foreign policy experience, which is supposed to be his strength. he has repeatedly mixed up sunni and shiite tribes in iraq. he has mentioned problems on the iraq/pakistan border (theres not one), hes mentioned issues in Czechoslovakia (which hasnt existed since the early 90s), hes claimed that iraq was the first major confict post 9/11 (Afghanistan anyone?), and hes consitantly made incorrect statements about troop levels in iraq, including stating that the surge started the anbar awakening, which actually began 3 months before the first surge troops got there. You know if Obama had made any of those statements the repubs would hang him for it as showing his weak foreign policy, but since its mccain, its ok. because he was in the military so hes obviously an expert.
By The Snark
July 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Ray:
You say you want to hear “a career veteran, who has seen combat in a war zone, state that he/she is comfortable with Obama as their leader.” How about General Wesley Clark? Valedictorian of his class at West Point, shot four times in Viet Nam as a company commander, Bronze Star, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Presidential Medal of Freedom. He’s for Obama.
Or do you have some talk radio excuse for dismissing General Clark’s opinion?
While I admire Senator McCain’s service, it should trouble you a great deal that he doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and S** Muslims, thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border, claims that the “surge” predates Army commanders’ alliances with anti-al Queda Sunnis, and can’t remember that Czechoslovakia was partitioned years ago. [Look it up on Google — and don’t blame the “liberal media” for what you find.] Like the current occupant of the White House, he simply lacks the foundation to make serous foreign policy decisions.
By Chilao
July 25, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Bomb Bomb Bomb
of course there is a significant American population who also share that view of Bomb Bomb Bomb, a variation of shoot-first/ask-questions-later.
By Beretverde
July 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
It sure can’t hurt (ala JFK-HST).
By Ray
July 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Wesley Clark is a politician, plain and simple. Wesley Clark is an opportunist who has his wet finger in the air just like Hillary. He will say and do most anything to promote himself and his agenda. Ever hear of a guy by the name of Alexander Haig? Same kind of person, lots of medals, promotions at the right times and bravado….. just a bit short on integrity and a bit over the top on how important he was.
Clark is from the same mold. He is way out of his league. A lot of us got a lot of medals for our service. With all of them and $1.35, you can get a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
By TrueDat
July 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
I’m sure neither Ray nor Gale voted for Bush 43 since he had no federal government experience, no foreign affairs experience and had served only 1 term as a state governor. I’m also positive they cast their ballot for Mccain’s “experience in the 2000 primary,” like all the other republicans claiming the importance of Experience! Its a wonder that Bush beat mccain in that primary when every republican I speak with or read on this blog talk about how crucial experince is.
it’s called karma…
By Gale
July 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Wrong on my primary choice. I did not vote in the 2000 primary and I am a registered Dem. I figured Bush Jr as a hawk from his previous record. This year, I voted Clinto in the primary. It was a lost cause in GA. I still think she is the strongest candidate of the three.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
Why would the wonder boy go on a tour of the Mid East and Europe during a campaign, dragging along every media prop in existence, making so many PR stops that even he said that he was exhausted? Why would an inexperienced candidate from either party pander to a bunch of foreigners for “approval” and image polishing? Why does his campaign structure all of his “press conferences” so that he doesn’t get asked the “wrong questions?” Even Andrea Mitchell, a decided liberal journalist, stated that his access to the media was so structured that most of them didn’t really know what he stood for. Try talking to the American public off the cuff, Snark, in town hall meetings like McCain has. You might forget a few facts too, regardless of your age. Who is the most real here? Take away Obama’s teleprompter and see what kind of candidate you have. He might just be a little short on facts too.
By ESR
July 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
I don’t think Obama has an once of respect for the military. I think him and his bitter, pompous wife look at people who are in the military as a bunch of losers who were not able to use their race and background to get into lofty colleges and get a headstart in life, to work the system. Bush may have had no prior military experience but he had respect and a deep admiration for the military. I cringed when I watched the ever-so-inarticulate John Lewis following his recent re-election state that his number one goal was to pull the troops out of Iraq and stop the war. Somehow Lewis forgot to watch the news that same day where 6 young males were shot in the same apartment complex in his district of Dekalb Count and 2 more males shot in Clayton County the same day. Lewis, you have bigger issues in the hoods of your district than you do in Iraq, leave Iraq to military leaders who have a brain. This excludes Lewis. Lewis was too uninformed (stupid..okay..I said it) to realize that in one single day more people were shot and killed in the district he represents that in Iraq for almost a month. Lewis is clueless about the military as most democrats are. Most democrats are unpatriotic, bitter, selfish and always ready to make Amercia look bad and some other country look better than us. Obama looks so out of place on his current world tour and you can tell many of the soldiers who are half-heartedly clapping for him in front of the cameras were made to do so by their commanding officers. Military respect and Obama are oxy-morons. It’s good to see with all the hype and press Obama is getting, still McCain is closing the gap in the polls. Voters are getting smarter about Obama day by day, minute by minute.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
it’s interesting to look at the schizophrenic nature of the GOP soldier fetish.
— Some of the most vilified Democrats are/were veterans, including Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale.
— Now look at the Republican leadership. John Ashcroft didn’t serve. Neither did Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Doug Feith, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert, Trent Lott, Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Rick Santorum, nor Paul Wolfowitz.
if military service was the be-all/end-all for leadership and presidential ability, the Republican bench would be really, really weak.
By GOB
July 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
Interesting how this wasnt a concern for repbulicans on 2004. They couldnt dismiss or disparage John Kerry’s service fast enough.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Kudos, ESR, couldn’t have said it better!!
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
Why would the wonder boy go on a tour of the Mid East and Europe during a campaign, dragging along every media prop in existence, making so many PR stops that even he said that he was exhausted?
That is odd. Everything I read proved that the majority of his stops were pretty void of PR setups which bothered repubs.
Why would an inexperienced candidate from either party pander to a bunch of foreigners for “approval” and image polishing?
You call it pander, many others call it building good relations after all the damage done by current administration. Would you really hire a CEO that was hated by companies you partner with? I hope not. Studies have proven that, even if the employee makes the company tons of money, people who are abrasive cause more harm in dollars than they take in.
Why does his campaign structure all of his “press conferences” so that he doesn’t get asked the “wrong questions?”
Once again, I guess you are watching different meetings than I.
By Sarah
July 25, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
By RF
July 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Military service is an image issue for candidates. The perception is that a veteran has strength and perseverance that a civvie doesn’t. What hogwash! In this race, as I’m watching and listening, only a green civvie has had the cahunas to go over and actually meet with leaders and discuss issues—without making it a photo op and sound byte time for the campaign. I don’t think military service makes one any more able to sit down with world leaders and work on solutions to problems. I respect military service (especially combat experience), but I don’t think it makes one more intelligent in foreign affairs. We’ve lived too long in the fear of war and the deep-seated belief that we have to have a strong military leader ready to jump on the bad guys and nuke ‘em. How’s that belief working out in Iraq?
Diplomacy and ability to negotiate with leaders isn’t a function of military or political experience. I remember when Reagan was meeting with Gorbachev. When he and Reagan walked off by themselves and got away from the press and all the guvment staffers, they had a real conversation that led to understanding and progress in negotiations. Reagan talked about that as the turning point in discussions which ended the cold war. Carter got Sadat and Begin (sp?) to finally sit down and work our their differences. Did military experience help in that? I don’t see it. Currently, we have little if any dialogue with foreign leaders. Rice is the only one over there talking to them. Does she have military experience? We need a president who can meet with these people in honest discussions without sending his minions to do his work. I bet Obama will, in the end, make more progress in foreign relations than we have seen in the last eight years.
On another topic for a moment, did anyone read the article about the Extreme Makeover Home Edition family in Clayton Co. that is facing foreclosure? New house (5000 sq.ft.plus), no mortgage, 100 grand in cash, and what did they do? Took out a 450,000 mortgage to start a construction business, which is of course failing. Can anyone say STUPID???
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Ray - Why would an inexperienced candidate from either party pander to a bunch of foreigners for “approval” and image polishing?
ever heard of “Ex-patriots” and “military families”? They get to vote, too. Were I an engineer working in Austria or part of a military family who followed their soldier to his post in Germany, I think I’d be flattered and excited that at least one of the men asking for my vote would deign to pander for my vote.
and just out of curiostiy…why does it seem like “conservatives” have such a hard time voicing an opinion that doesn’t use insults and put-downs as talking points?
By GOB
July 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
ESR - Did you really complain about Obama using his “race and history to get into lofty colleges and get a headstart in life, to work the system” and then talk about how Bush didnt and had some deep respect for the military? Really? Seriously?
By The Snark
July 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Ray:
You say you want an opinion from a combat veteran, then you get one, and you brush it off as coming from a “politician”? As if Sen. McCain himself isn’t a politician? That’s some pretty lame stuff, bro.
PS My dad was an Air Force pilot too — and he’d be the first to tell you than twenty years of flight checks and living on base housing doesn’t qualify anybody for the White House.
By Sarah
July 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
RF, what in Clayton County does not say STUPID? It’s also full to the hilt of Obama supportrers? A mere coincidence? I think not.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Sarah, how do you explain Obama’s popularity with the “arugela set”? They are not among the unwashed masses.
Personally, I think the Dems screwed up. They should have kept this man on the bench for another term and let him play fund-raiser. He is really good at that.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Jokes On,
Relationships with other countries are made after being elected, not before. If not, it is called pandering. The last time I looked, all of the foreigners are without a vote. Charm school might make you look better to the electorate but it won’t chase away one terrorist. He is not only pandering to foreigners but also to the media, the black community and anyone else he can to make his image acceptable. The media has obviously bought it and is trying to shove this wonder boy down the throats of uninformed and stupid Americans. But we are all not so stupid, Jokes, and the electorate is waking up to what a hollow and naive candidate that he really is. McCain is closing the gap and the more America sees of this doofas, the more the gap will close.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
anyone care to comment on ex-military McCain’s ignoring the invasion of Afghanistan as a military undertaking? In all likelihood, this was a simple mental mistake for McCain, among a litany of others recently. But it does go toward state of mind. Our leaders never saw Afghanistan as a priority regardless of how vital we citizens thought it to be.
(nice of CBS to edit the comment out of their interview though.)
here’s the story…
By RF
July 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
Most democrats are unpatriotic, bitter, selfish and always ready to make Amercia look bad and some other country look better than us
ROFL!!!! Do you really believe that load of bull??? And YOU talk about intelligence? ROFLMAO!!
Dems live and work in the same country, state, and neighborhoods the paranoid repubs do. Stop believing everything you hear on Fox and CBN and realize that we all want to live in a strong, safe country in a world free from terror and war. Dems just see a different route there that doesn’t force thousands of young men and women to be permanently injured or killed. Since the repubs have such a better system, how about explaining the Veterans Administration? For a party that respects the military so much, how about you take better care of the veterans you put in the situation to get hurt? It disgusts me to see how poorly we care for those we so quickly send off to fight.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
ROTFL!!! Ever looked at the actual democraphics? The more educated one is, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. Sorry. It’s a statistical fact.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
ROTFL!!! Ever looked at the actual demographics? The more educated one is, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. Sorry. It’s a statistical fact.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Ray,
Relationships with other countries are made after being elected, not before. If not, it is called pandering.
So we are supposed to just hope who we are voting for can talk with other countries?
I call bs on your statement. Proving you can related to, and be accepted by, other countries is an asset worth proving. Stating it not only means nothing, but that it is a bad thing proves you have blinders on to the good points of the candidate you are against.
The binary judgment is tiring. If you read on the board you will see two trends, the libs acknowledge McCain’s assets but like Obama’s more or find them more important/relevant. the conservatives dis everything about Obama and tout everything about McCain as grand. The frat house mentality is destructive to all - except for the few who are members; and to be a member you have to think and dress…etc exactly like your peers. Not a club I really want to be a part of.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
RF - Since the repubs have such a better system, how about explaining the Veterans Administration? For a party that respects the military so much, how about you take better care of the veterans you put in the situation to get hurt?
I have that tiara around here somewhere…(if kimberly didn’t take it with her) :^)
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
ESR —
I’m a little curious…Which month exactly was it in which only 6 people were killed in Iraq?
And correct me if my understanding of our political system is off, but I believe John Lewis’s job representation of the people in his district at the Federal level, not local law enforcement.
“It’s good to see with all the hype and press Obama is getting, still McCain is closing the gap in the polls.”
You don’t even have your facts straight.
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
I gotta type this and get out of here for a bit. I’m getting too ‘riled up’ here today.
I’m SICK and TIRED of FEAR, WAR, and the notion that we have to keep going to war to prove that we’re the biggest bully on the block!! I’m done with being afraid of every person I see who looks even remotely Middle-Eastern. I’m tired of the constant litany from the right that we have to close our doors to Hispanics and bomb every country besides Israel and Saudi Arabia. We HAVE to find a way to deal with the world without spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of our citizens as war casualties. I’m disgusted, I’m angry, I’m FED UP with the fear-mongering, which is all the republicans can seem to do anymore. You can’t laud your own candidate and prove his ability. You spend 99.9% of your time talking about how bad the other guy is in hopes that it will make your own foolishness look better. I’m tired of looking at my sons and wondering if they’ll live to have a future or die in some god-forasken desert fighting for oil so our big business monster can be fed. I worry that they will fall into Big Brother’s army of ignorant war machine and blindly go to their deaths so we can say “we’re gettin’ them dang terrorists!” Can’t you find something else to motivate conservatism than fear and war? The scary thing is, there are many in this country who are drinking the Kool-Aid and smiling as they strangle and writhe!
I tell you, the more I read of the paranoid, militaristic, narrow-minded conservative dogma here, the more liberal I become.
By kitty
July 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
Has McCain, the great man for CIC and his FP credentials, found Czechoslovakia yet?
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
I love that we have one poster on the board claiming that Obama impresses the “dumb and uneducated” while another implies elitism by saying he’s popular with “the arugela [sic] set”.
I can’t believe the right gets away with all this crap. McCain criticizes Obama for not having visited Iraq. Obama goes to visit Iraq, and McCain says it’s a political maneuver. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann is the only journalist/commentator to call McCain out on it. The supposedly liberal MSM stays silent, much as they do with every asinine thing McCain does and says.
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
I have that tiara around here somewhere…(if kimberly didn’t take it with her)
Just keep it Mara. It’s impossible to find shoes and a bag that go with it, especially on casual Fridays!! ;-0
By kitty
July 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
ROTFL!!! Ever looked at the actual democraphics? The more educated one is, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. Sorry. It’s a statistical fact.
===========
Mara, keep in mind, the Repubs…more likely to be less educated, voted in GWB…all that needs to be said.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Personally, I think the Dems screwed up. They should have kept this man on the bench for another term and let him play fund-raiser. He is really good at that.
please learn how the system works. the “Dems” - as in the Democratic Party - aren’t a college football team, red-shirting a player for a year so that he can season. the primary system isn’t a political machine - every dem (and evidently, a number of republicans who registered as a dem as a part of Rush’s “Operation Chaos”) voted for Obama to be the presidential candidate.
By Snidely Butright
July 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
kitty, at least he didn’t forget POLAND!
By Gale
July 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
USinUK, agreed. Once the die was cast and Obama was in the primary race, there was little to be done. The DNC would have had to coax him into the back seat very early. They had no problem harping at Clinton to bow out so the golden boy could run unopposed. After Super Tuesday, they would have had a hard time gracefully putting him in the back seat, much less on the sideline. And putting him out of the bus to run next term? His ego would not have allowed it.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
I tell you, the more I read of the paranoid, militaristic, narrow-minded conservative dogma here, the more liberal I become.
I am with RF on that one. Conservatives look good on paper and even their actions performed in the past, but today they are an exclusive frat house.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
RF,
Conservatism thrives on individual accomplishment, lack of government support, ingenuity,a will to make it on your own, not wanting your nose wiped by Big Brother every time you get a cold, not waiting on your front porch in NO for the government to come bail you out, LOVE OF COUNTRY, a will to survive despite hardship, not being expected to be treated more special than anyone else regardless of race or gender, hard work, hard work, hard work and the thought that the individual is far more important than the collective. I could go on and on but I wonder if you would understand? I also do not want my children wasting away in some desert protecting our oil reserves but as long as the soccer moms have a vote and need their SUVs filled up, someone has to. If not, politicians would not get elected.
In a perfect world, aircraft do not crash into buildings, rogue countries do not develop nuclear weapons, everyone has respect for his fellow man and borders are not necessary to secure. We ain’t there yet, RF, and probably never will be.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Ray -
you want military endorsements?? here:
John Adams, Brigadier General US Army (Ret), Former Deputy US Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee
Clifford Alexander, Jr., former Secretary of the Army
Susan Ahn Cuddy, first female gunner officer in the U.S. Navy and daughter of Korean Independence fighter Ahn Chang-ho
Wesley Clark, former General, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, 2004 presidential candidate
Tom Daniels, Texas Air National Guard
Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy
Larry Gillespie, Brigadier General (Ret), Assistant Deputy Commanding General, (ARNG) Army Material Command
Scott Gration Major General (USAF-Ret), former Director of Strategy, Policy, and Assessments of the United States European Command in Germany
Donald Joseph Guter, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, current Dean, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh
Richard D. Hearney, former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
Jeh Johnson, former General Counsel of the U.S. Air Force
Lester Lyles, former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force
David ‘Dave’ McGinnis, Brigadier General (Ret), former Chief of Staff of the National Guard Association of the U.S.
Merrill A. McPeak, four star General (Ret), former Secretary of the United States Air Force during Operation Desert Storm,
John B. Nathman (Ret), former Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Vice Chief of Naval Operations
F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the Air Force[186] Hugh Robinson, Major General (Ret), Commander of the Southwestern Division
James Smith, Brigadier General (USAF-Ret), former Commander, Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center
Robert ‘Willie’ Williamson Rear Admiral (USN-Ret), served as military Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition and Director, Office of Program Appraisal.
Ralph Wooten Major General (Ret), former Commanding General of the Army’s Chemical Arsenal, currently the Executive Vice President of Management Systems, Inc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofBarackObamapresidentialcampaignendorsements,_2008#Military
or do you want to dismiss them, as well?? are you SO. MUCH. BETTER. than they are that you can look down your nose and sneer at them, also?
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Once the die was cast and Obama was in the primary race, there was little to be done. The DNC would have had to coax him into the back seat very early. They had no problem harping at Clinton to bow out so the golden boy could run unopposed. After Super Tuesday, they would have had a hard time gracefully putting him in the back seat, much less on the sideline. And putting him out of the bus to run next term? His ego would not have allowed it.
What ARE you talking about??? going into the primary season, Hillary was all but crowned by the media and even the Democratic party? Even after Super Tuesday, it was still a horse race - he gained enough delegates that he should have to take a “back seat” or get “out of the bus” as you put it (VERY poor choice of words, by the way).
He not only beat Clinton in delegates, he thoroughly trounced her in fund-raising WITHOUT the muscle of the DNC behind him - and, as we all saw, the SuperDelegates declared for him in droves as the primary season wore on.
Why, I ask you, should he be required to step aside for Hillary when the will of the people said otherwise?
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Gale, you totally misunderstand things. Obama’s ego? He went in largely unknown, raised record funds, and won early and often. Why would he have quit? If not him, it would have been Clinton, and nothing would have mobilized the GOP base like the prospect of “President Hillary Clinton”. She would not have stood a chance.
No, Obama was and is the best hope for Democratic (and democratic) control of the White House. This supposed deficiency regarding CIC? Please! All the President does is set strategy. He has his military commanders to advise him on tactics, and I believe Obama is far more open-minded in this matter than McCain, who basically wants to bomb anyone and everyone.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Ray, turn off Fox, read David Cay Johnston’s book “Free Lunch”, and then come back and tell us again how conservatism is all about individual accomplishment without help from the government.
Until then, shut up.
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Ray- just so you know, I’m a committed moderate, leaning further left by the day. I have two college degrees, both of which I worked and paid for without financial aid. I am a respected educator who works all year AND all summer to support my sons, who I am raising as a simgle parent. I have worked two and three jobs when necessary to pay the bills. NOBODY wipes my nose by ME! I believe in the power of the individual, but I also believe when the individual forgets his place in the larger society and refuses to see anything but himself, he and his society are doomed. Why is it adamant conservatives preach self-reliance and thump the Bible, which includes the lesson of the Good Samaritan? Like most people in this country, republican or democrat, I’ve taken care of myself and believe in giving a helping hand to those who need it. I became a teacher to help empower ALL kids to become intelligent, hard-working, productive citizens of the world who can take care of themselves and contribute to society. What have you done?
We cannot forget our responsibility to insuring the survival of the needy. One of the greatest ills right now in this country is how quickly we look down on those in need and blame them for being poor and typecast as losers, criminals, and lazy. You should watch “Black in America” on CNN. I’m white, but I want to cry when I see how our society is pigeon-holing even the African-American males who ARE trying to live up to the standard you give. We will pay a big price for ignoring our poor and struggling, and you and the rest of your ilk will suffer just as much as the rest of us.
No, it’s not about the individual. It’s about greed, selfishness, and imprisoning any who don’t look as pale as you do. It’s the embodiment of Hitler’s Aryan race and it’s getting worse in this country, IMO.
Once again, your argument only makes me even MORE liberal in belief. Go ahead and preach it, it’s not helping your cause.
By The Snark
July 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
USinUK:
Impressive research there, but it won’t matter to the wingnuts. Whenever you call them on the facts, they just change the subject or call names.
Hey Ray, what’s your clever answer for the fact that Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran — a conservative Republican, last I heard, who has served in the Senate with both candidates — thinks McCain does not have the temprament to be President. The actual quote is:
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
That was in January 2008. I guess he’s just another politician, huh?
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
but as long as the soccer moms have a vote and need their SUVs filled up
the last time I checked, most of those folks have McCain bumper stickers and live in the majority conservative burbs…
By Copyleft
July 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
ESR, Ray, and Gale: Your arguments have been trounced, soundly, by Mara (at 10:14) and USinUK (at 11:34)… do you have a cogent response to offer?
Because this isn’t going to be much of a blog if the conservative argument is demolished beyond hope of recovery before noon on the very first day.
By RF
July 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
What scares conservatives right now is that many of their own don’t believe in McCain. He scores very poorly among strong right conservatives and not much better among more centered republicans. It scares them that their big business machine may not go so unregulated. They’re deathly afraid that they might be shown for the wolves in sheep’s clothing that they are on domestic issues and foreign relations. They’re very very worried that the lily-white executives making 6 and 7 digit salaries while droves of workers are laid off just might have to pay some taxes for once. It makes them foam at the mouth to think that human rights issues might get more than a verbal discussion and that we might actually give someone darker or differently oriented sexually the same rights and opportunities they have. They’re hyperventilating to think that their psedo-fifties lifestyle just might have to change to a more twenty-first century one where their kids play with and make friends with kids of all races. Oh perish the thought!!
What they fail to realize is that the country will survive and may even improve if they give it a chance. Their lives will be more secure and peaceful without a multi-trillion dollar federal deficit and a war with every country in the Middle East. They might actually be able to buy a house that isn’t overinflated in value. Of course, that means they may have to live with a few of “those people” in the neighborhood, and that just isn’t acceptable.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
The Snark Shark -
Impressive research there, but it won’t matter to the wingnuts. Whenever you call them on the facts, they just change the subject or call names.
well, it darned well better had … I’ve been in meetings all afternoon and am busting my patootie to get all my Friday reports done - but couldn’t let that question stand without an answer.
what I thought was VERY interesting was the number of NAVY people who aren’t endorsing McCain - 37% of the list!
By RF
July 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
USinUK- you mean there’s dissension in the ranks of conservative militants….errrr, I mean military professionals??? I’m shocked to think they might see McCain for the hothead he is. What persecution will they suffer for saying that, I wonder!
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
It’s not so much the military service that matters, as to what the individual does during that matters to me.
When I was in the military, I met a guy who admitted that he was there to do his time and deliberately picked the easiest assignments. Why? Well because he same from a political family, in his case a southern political family, and had plans to run for politcial office. Military service, even if it was spent sitting behind a desk pushing papers, was a must. He was a decent enough man, but his service was nothing special.
I’ve also known people who never served in the military, but for who public service was a true calling. They served the public good in an admirable fashion.
Being in the military can be an example of exemplary service or not.
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Besides, the last time I checked the US Constitution, no where in the presidential eligibility requirements was military service required.
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Besides what makes somebody a great soldier (or Marine, Sailor, Airman) does not necessarily make one a great politician.
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
By Ray
I want to hear from a liberal who is a career veteran, who has seen combat in a war zone, state that he/she is comfortable with Obama as their leader
Well, there’s reited General Wesley Clark and last I heard, Colin Powel was cosnidering throwing his support behind Obama.
If combat experience/active duty service was such a must with voters, John Kerry and Al Gore would have been president.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
USinUK, sorry for the delay. Away from my desk a bit. Work happens.
He not only beat Clinton in delegates, he thoroughly trounced her in fund-raising
He would not have won the delagate count early but for the FL and MI debacle. And fund-raising? As I said, he can raise money. He does that well. I am not swayed by a candidate who can buy the election. If the media had been tougher on him from the beginning, I doubt very much he would have won as many votes. How many voters in Iowa really would have voted for him after the Rev. Wright issue?
As for mobilizing the GOP against Clinton, well, I think everyone has been aware of the dirty laundry in her house. We have the goods on McCain too. They have been in the national public eye for a long time. Obama is a relative newbie and everyone has been tiptoing around him, lest we offend someone.
Yes, I know the President sets direction and advisors carry out the plan. I am worried what ‘advisors’ would end up in an Obama administration. His only connections seem to be in Chicago politics. He was not in the Senate long enough to make connections. On the other side of the ticket, I am worried about McCain’s positions on overturning Roe-v-Wade and gay marriage, not to mention women’s issues in general. I guess in that sense, Obama would do less damage to the Supreme court, from my perspective, at least.
By Shaka
July 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
There is really only one word to describe the attitude towards Obama that many present here and in the CONservative circles - JEALOUSY!
I just have to say it. Your image of a man that looks like Obama in one in handcuffs, or pants sagging off his @$$…or slouched back in an Escalade on big rims. Period.
How DARE this man command the respect of other world leaders and have people in this country and abroad excited and egaged about a new and better direction for our country! Come to grips with your seething jealousy and hatred. Last time I checked there were only two qualifications to be “President” of this country natural-born, 35, and 14!
Who in the h3ll are you to determine whether someone is qualified or not?? I guarantee there isn’t a person on this board that could hold a candle to Barack Obama, nor his water for that matter. Most of you probably couldn’t even hold a candle to me - with my “arrogant” @$Z…
By RF
July 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
If the media had been tougher on him from the beginning, I doubt very much he would have won as many votes. How many voters in Iowa really would have voted for him after the Rev. Wright issue?
It’s interesting how that issue has died out, and it hasn’t been because of the money machine churning out slick ads to gloss it over. It simply fizzled out and Wright’s out of that church now. What seemed like a point of controversy that might become an issue simply didn’t. I also haven’t heard any Iowa voters or notable figures shouting for their votes back either. If that issue were going to hurt him in the polls, it would have by now. And he didn’t have to buy his way out of it.
What you have to remember is that Hillary had support from big donors who would have eventually called in their markers if she made the White House. Obama collected the vast majority of his money from small donations given by individuals, not big corporations. Even if I don’t totally agree with his politics, I respect the fact that he isn’t almost totally funded by big donors who will eventually exert influence on his administration. That’s one problem with the White House now and has been a problem in many past administrations. I think it just might be nice to have a prez for a change who isn’t a puppet of Big Oil. While I’m not 100% sold on the guy, I was admittedly more concerned about Hillary’s connection to the Good Old Boys and the probability that they would have had WAY too much influence on her. If we’re going to change the system, we have to start with a fundamental shift from the old ways of funding and influencing a campaign.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
I frankly don’t see how Obama’s advisors could be any worse than McCain’s, who will be basically the same people than set policy now. And Phil Gramm, the man who’s as responsible as a single person can be for Enron, the mortgage crisis, and gas speculation.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Shaka, I don’t deny that Obama is a successful guy. He and his wife are both bright and successful. I doubt that experience is sufficient to run the USA today. I first heard him in the last DNC convention and I thought then we would see a lot more of him. A president needs more than charisma. Even the great Jack Kennedy might have gone down in ashes for his hawkish ways if he had been in office longer.
I live in Atlanta. I have abundant examples of successful, bright black men and women around me. The rappers make the front pages, but what I see are the business men and women. Get the chip off your shoulder.
I’ll tell you one thing I don’t like that is not a requirement for office. I don’t like that I might see a president who has dual citizenship. Sure, other people have dual citizenships. It just doesn’t seem right to me that the president would.
By kimberly
July 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Shaunti’s assertion that we will look to military experience to protect us from “very real threats” is, as usual, a kindergarten-level talking point. (Repeat until you vomit this afternoon’s rainbow sherbet, please.)
Our troops have been in Iraq for FIVE YEARS with no end in sight, and Bin Laden, the guy who actually arranged the attacks on us in 2001, remains free. Setting aside that troops (and money) were pulled from the correctly-invaded country to invade an incorrect (but loaded with oil) country, we still have the utter failure of accomplishment, at least with respect to the amount of tax dollars and lives invested, regarding the frequently-changing “mission” in Iraq. Those of us capable of critical thinking (or at least some measure thereof) might conclude the following:
A purely military solution, without regard to diplomacy and common sense, is not a solution at all! If it were, our troops would long since have returned from Iraq, and the war profiteers, into whose pockets our treasury (past, present, and future) has been emptied, would be busying themselves with something more productive — like development of alternative energies, perhaps? — or at least we could pretend they’re not traitors long enough to imagine they’d do the right thing. McCain = More of the same. Now THAT’s something to be afraid of, Mz. Feldhahn.
By Sarah
July 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
Why try to argue with liberals. Not all liberals all low wage earners but most low wage eraners are liberals. I don’t eat fast food but I am sure most of you libs do, so the next time you’re ordering your heart attack in a bag, ask the counter person who they would vote for if they knew how or had a ride to the poll or if they legally could vote(felon). They’d tell you Obama. Most business owners, your bosses and old money are conservatives. You libs are Hollywood fluff wannabe’s and people who would cut off the nose to spite the face. People who make thirty grand a year and voting Obama are insane. He’ll raise your taxes, you cannot afford Obama on a mere 30K a year. I am by no means a die hard McCain fan but he is a thousand times better than Obama. Ask Jesse Jackson why he hates Obama so. Jackson views Obama as the end of his and many others ‘free ride’. Now that Obama has made it, why can’t anyone? Why grant anymore quota’s, affrimative action headstarts based on race and not socio-economics? With all the press and all the news crews fawning over Obamamania he still can’t get a huge boost in the polls. Just like he could never nail the coffin shut on Hillary. Obama will NEVER be elected president but it’s okay for you dimwits to enjoy this little fantasy for a while longer. It’ll make his defeat that much sweeter. Now, I am off to play golf with my husband and a few conservative friends.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Shaka - *There is really only one word to describe the attitude towards Obama that many present here and in the CONservative circles - JEALOUSY! — I just have to say it. Your image of a man that looks like Obama in one in handcuffs, or pants sagging off his @$$…or slouched back in an Escalade on big rims. Period.”
I really doubt that anybody is actually jealous of Obama. Nor do I particularly appreciate the insulting tone of your post. You have every right to voice your opinion, but I think we’re pretty much full up on abusive commentators here.
But thanks for stopping in.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
RF — Though I’m definitely more a leftist than yourself, you 1:19 speaks for me.
Sarah — I’m getting the impression that you’re either (A) a bitter Hillary supporter, (B) an Obama supporter pulling a New Yorker (or is it a New Yorker-er?) and regurgitating the other side’s most idiotic assertions, either for the sake of humor or to fire up fellow Obama supporters, or (C) certifiably insane.
The only taxes that will really go up under an Obama administration will be, I believe, those on people making $200K+ per year. Oh how will they all survive? Meanwhile, the money saved by getting out of Iraq could pay for things like roads, schools, and, just maybe, a decent healthcare system.
By sitlia
July 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
alcotaolor
By sitlia
July 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
alcotaolor
By Corey
July 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
As a military veteran I can honestly say that I served under some officers that I would not follow across the street. McCain was a fighter pilot; he did not command troops on the ground. Pilots do not provide much leadership because of their roles. Pilots who serve a consideable amount time and become senior officer do get leadership experience.
By sitlia
July 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
alcotaolor
By RF
July 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Not all liberals all low wage earners but most low wage eraners are liberals
Depends on where you look. Many fast-food workers are young conservatives working after school to pay for college which costs so much because conservatives have made it too expensive to even think about. They work for minimum wage while their “old money” bosses drive the Mercedes to the golf course and make millions a year riding on the hard-working backs of the minions they employ and give no benefits. Why is it that spoon-fed conservatives have this notion that democrats are mostly poor minorities? Scares you to think there might be some of your own that don’t support the “good, old-fashioned” way of life, doesn’t it? My goodnes, you might have to pay your maid what she’s worth or clean a toilet yourself. Perish the thought!!
Jesse Jackson doesn’t like Obama because he’s not militant enough for Jackson’s agenda. Jackson is JEALOUS because people of all colors are listening to Obama and laugh at Jackson. Most modern African-Americans are embarrassed by Jackson.
While I’m sure it makes you feel better to spew spittle and bitterness all over the burbs as you drive your Lexxus to the plastic surgeon’s office, you might want to actually read the polls and see how many educated, articulate, respected people see Obama as a viable candidate. What will you say when those educated votes are cast? Come on Scarlett, put down the fan, hike up the hoop skirts, and get off the verandah. You’re irritating Rhett, and you wouldn’t want him to assert his male dominance and exert his conservative lifestyle now, would you?
One can only hope your golf score is better than your IQ, Sarah.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
Wow. So, McCain challenged Obama because he had never been to Iraq. So Obama went to Iraq, and then McCain said it was all a political stunt. Then Obama cancelled a planned trip to a military base, according to Pentagon guidelines, because it could be seen as political in nature to visit with wounded soldiers, and, according to his people, would be “inappropriate”. Is McCain happy that Obama’s not using the trip as a political ploy? Let’s see, shall we?
“Barack Obama is wrong. It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in response to the news. — HuffPo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-cancels-military-ban114804.html
Oh, and just to show what a phallocranial-American McCain can be:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/mccain-blows-off-wsj-repon114955.html
By Gale
July 25, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
Billy, “The only taxes that will really go up under an Obama administration will be, I believe, those on people making $200K+ per year.”
mmm-hmmm. So he says. What will be the case when Congress has their say? Don’t get me wrong. I think universal health care is a great thing. There are some really good examples in some other countries. They are tax-funded. Big diff. My insurance comes out of my paycheck now. I don’t think it should be on the backs of the $200+/year earners. I also don’t think there is any way around some people paying more so some people can pay less.
By RF
July 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
RF — Though I’m definitely more a leftist than yourself, you 1:19 speaks for me
Move over Billy, I’m headed that way myself. The more I talk to and read the words of conservatives here lately, the further left on the bench I’m sliding!! I just flat refuse to raise my boys to see the world as the white male-dominated, fat old money world that too many want to keep that way.
Oh my Rhett, whatever shall we do? Prissy and the other darkies are going to rise and they’ll take dear old Tara away from us! Might we have to treat them as, oh dear I can’t say it, equals? How will we ever actually pay taxes on your executive salary and keep Little Tara up in Alpharetta AND the country club membership? What will we do if we can’t send the children to an exclusive private school? I just might die if I have to actually treat them with respect and offer them healthcare. And my lord, we give the men such nice accomodations in prisons. Prissy, get the smelling salts. I think I’ll just swoon right here by the magnolias!
By Billy
July 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Not all liberals all low wage earners but most low wage eraners are liberals
And, RF, even if we did accept this statement as fact, it’d be pretty easy to argue that the reason low wage earners are liberals is that they know how hard it is to, ahem, “put food on your family” when earning low wages. They also know that the Horatio Alger crap of yesteryear was a fallacy and is even more so today. When it becomes increasingly hard to unionize to secure benefits and a living wage, people are definitely going to support the party that is willing to try to help them a little instead of offering up any table scraps than happen to fall from on high.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Why try to argue with liberals.
I have yet to see a decent argument from you. I have read claims that are easily and quickly discredited. Then, instead of having a rebuttal of any sort, you resort to name calling and insults.
Do any of you have more substance then that? If we libs are so stoopid, where are your counter points? If you are so smart, why the 4th grade name calling?
I really am seeing a trend of anyone that was a decent person in your party is leaving out of shame.
By Jack
July 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Oh Kim. We didn’t go into Iraq because of oil. We went in because Daddy Bush didn’t have the gonads to do it in 91. No military service does not qualify one to be prez but it doesn’t hurt. Running a large company would probably give you more qualifications for prez. I’m not for Obama because he will take more of our money to make things “fair”. What is fair about taking more out of my pay to give to someone who doesn’t deserve it? If they took it to care for neglected or abandoned children that’s fine, but we know the money would go for a bridge to nowhere or some other vote buying project.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
So I shouldn’t believe what Obama says about Obama’s tax plan, but I should believe what Drunkey McBlogpost says about Obama’s tax plan? I guess he *would know more, huh?
I also don’t think there is any way around some people paying more so some people can pay less.”
I agree if you remove “pay less” and insert “have a place to live and food to eat”.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Everyone should read “Free Lunch” by David Cay Johnston. Buy it. Borrow it. Check it out at the library. Find a pirated version online for all I care. Just read the thing. It’ll make you mad.
By sam
July 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Andrea,
You seem really impressed with Bill Clinton for heroically avoiding a genocide in Kosovo. Too bad he wasn’t so quick to prevent genocide in Rwanda…..
By sam
July 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
I think what bugs some people about Obama is not his lack of military experience. It’s his lack of experience. period.
By Bruce
July 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
Please read the following quote from Col. Jessup in the movie A Few Good Men.
“Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.?
Although this comes from a movie it does ring of truth. We sit everyday at our keyboards and express our opinions about everything and anything under the blanket of protection they (our military)afford us. I really think we should be mindful of what we say about our military and its leadship. After all if it wasn’t for our military leaders do you really think that terrorism would have been as controlled as it has been since 9/11. Seeing someone/something blown up by a terroist used to be what 3 to 4 times a years all over the world? When was the last terroist attack, outside Iraq or Afghanistan, since 9/11? I think it was in London in 2005, I really can’t remember.
By RF
July 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
When it becomes increasingly hard to unionize to secure benefits and a living wage, people are definitely going to support the party that is willing to try to help them a little instead of offering up any table scraps than happen to fall from on high
But Billy, we offer them such nice scraps that fall from our Lenox China so they can eat in the kitchen and thank God for such a nice place to slave, I mean work!!
I’m not sure that unions are the answer. They were at one time, but traditional unions have become selfish ogres who demand higher wages that ultimately benef