Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Lieberman and Lamont: what it’s all about
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, August 09, 2006

So, Jo Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont and will now run as an Independent. What does it all mean? Let me correct two misapprehensions.

First, it does not mean that the Democrats are punishing their centrists, and trying to move the Party farther to the Left. Joe Lieberman was not punished for his centrism or his support of the Iraq war; lots of Democrats are farther Right than Lieberman and supported the Iraq war. Lieberman was punished for being insufficiently anti-Republican.

That—sharp opposition to Republicans and unquestioned loyalty to the Democratic Party—is the litmus test for Democrats today. Lieberman — by supporting not the war but the President; by criticizing Democrats and praising Republicans; even by such small things as going on the Sean Hannity show — failed that litmus test.

On the Republican side, John McCain occupies a similiar place. Grassroots dislike for McCain is not due to his lack of conservatism — his voting record is very conservative — but to his being insufficiently anti-Democratic. For that reason, many Republicans would be happy to see him defeated. He's not as vulnerable in his home State, however, so opposition to McCain would mostly come in Presidential primaries. By contrast, opposition to Arlen Specter was not due to his being insufficiently anti-Democrat, but to being insufficiently conservative.

The Democratic Activists — and especially the Netroots — are trying to create a 'movement' — a cohesive Democratic Party that can effect change. In order to do that, insufficiently partisan Democrats will be jettisoned. That, and not ideological problems, is what happened to Joe Lieberman.

Secondly, while the anti-Lieberman movement was not about ideology, and the activists protest any claim that they are moving the Party to the Left....that will be the effect, nonetheless. Aside from any individual ideological considerations — and bear in mind, Georgia's Hank Johnson is more centrist than Cynthia McKinney — the fact is that a Party that does not tolerate 'mavericks' will not be pulled Right by compromise as effectively as a big tent Party. The Democrats will gradually shift the rhetorical frame towards more strident opposition to Bush, to Republicans....ultimately, pushing the political frame Left.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The Democratic netroots is catalyzing the schism within the Democratic party, operating in the guise of re-energizing the party (though some might call it a purge). I certainly agree that the Democratic party has lost its way. Its raison d’etre post-FDR has been liberalism but liberalism peaked in the 60s and has turned to rot since, taking the Democrats down with it. Carter was a reactionary and failed president who only enhanced liberalism’s disrepute. And Clinton was no exception; he won as a Republican-light, not as a liberal Democrat. The netroots are attempting to resuscitate liberalism as the guiding philosophy of the Democratic party. I think they may succeed in gaining control of the party — it is an easy mark, being adrift and listless anyway — but liberalism, as such, is done. True, the Democrats may well gain control of the House in 2006, maybe even the Senate, but I suspect that the glory will be short-lived if traditional liberalism is the centerpiece.

Moreover, I have little doubt that the Democrats, once in control of either Congressional body will immediately turn guns blazing on the Bush Admininistration resulting in non-stop investigations, and likely leading to serious impeachment efforts. That seems inevitable for several reasons: 1) the Democrats do not really have policy alternatives to offer; 2) there will be the schism between the netroots-type traditional Dems and the centrists that will hinder concerted policy development; and 3) even if the Dems had policy initiatives to present, they would probably go nowhere, with a Republican president (and probably Senate, too). That leaves attacking Bush as the only common ground and galvanizing force.

All that said, I also believe that Conservatism is in decline. The Republicans have clearly overreached, but is is more than that. Ideologies like liberalism and conservatism have a relatively short half-life. But even after they expire there is the lag time within which the adhering party maintains political control despite the decline of its controlling ideology. That, I think, is where the Republicans are now.

If both Liberalism and Conservatism have been exhausted, what does that leave? Probably the centrism that Clinton practiced. But that is not the stuff of excitement, and it may well take a brilliant politician like Clinton to make it saleable. (Look at what happened to Dukakis who ran on "competency," and to Kerry who tried to straddle every issue.) Plus, Clinton being Clinton, he undoubtedly damaged the very movement he spearheaded.

The question really is which party will re-invent itself first. With control of the Democratic party being wrest by the hard-core liberals of the netroots, my money is on the Republicans. If neither major party can do it expeditiously enough, then a third-party may emerge.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
I can only speak for myself as to McCain, but my opposition to him is that he, at times, appears to be unbalanced. Passion and heated rhetoric are fine, but not exactly what I want in a President.

That, and his direct attack on free speech (ie campaign finance reform,) leave a sour taste for me.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
What it really means is that all of the pontificating and punditry regarding the outcome of the midterms that we’ve heard to this point basically goes flying out the window.

It was such a close outcome that it signals problems for the Dems. The Kos wing, flushed with "victory" is already pushing hard against Lieberman, and will start the bloodletting. You say it was because Lieberman wasn’t "anti-Bush" enough but you know darned well that the more left the party is pulled, it’s going to be about being anti-war. Bush hatred is de rigure once you exit Lieberman. I’m sorry, but the preliminary conclusion is that the coming Democrat schism is just about here. My guess is that this will serve to keep the GOP in power for one more election cycle than maybe otherwise would’ve happened, and the coming GOP schism will be on display in the 2008 Presidential primaries.

From where I sit, moving the party left has always been a loser for the Dems, and I believe it will be a loser here, especially as the more unhinged elemenst of the netroots revel in their power and become louder. Bad news for them- Bush isn’t running.

For the practical matter of the Senate seat, I’d be shocked if Lamont ever won. Lieberman will win, the only question in my mind is if the Dems fight against him so hard and viciously that he chooses to not caucus with the Dems and becomes a true independent.

Somewhere, Karl Rove is popping the champagne.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I can only speak for myself as to McCain, but my opposition to him is that he, at times, appears to be unbalanced.
Keith:

I am surprised and disappointed to hear you say that. As you probably know, when McCain ran against Bush one of the smears against McCain propagated by the die-hard Republicans was that McCain had gone crazy while being held as a POW. I found it disgraceful then, and no less so now. I realize that McCain-Feingold is anathema here, but at least that is a principled point of opposition. My strong suspicion is that Jon Henke has it just right: McCain is villified in the Republican party for the same reasons Lieberman has been by the Democrats: insufficient party loyalty.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Well David, I think when the leader of a party trashes one wing of his party, the Religious Right and seems the darling of "moderate Democrats"-people not in his party, one might understand thethe feeling of antipathy, apparently it’s mutual.
while the anti-Lieberman movement was not about ideology, and the activists protest any claim that they are moving the Party to the Left
Are you really sure of that statement Jon? Sure it was about ideology, politics is often ideology personified. We don’t repudiate ideas, we repudiate those that espouse them. Lieberman supported the war and the President. The Netroots people HATED that...that’s ideology. Sure it was about ideology, PROGRESSIVE Ideology.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Hey, I’m not saying he’s crazy, just not as level headed as I’d want a President to be. I’ll have to dig up the specifics, but there have been times where I’m left scratching my head as to know what John McCain would do if he were President.

And I’m not saying I couldn’t be convinced otherwise.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
My strong suspicion is that Jon Henke has it just right: McCain is villified in the Republican party for the same reasons Lieberman has been by the Democrats: insufficient party loyalty
No. Chafee and Specter are disliked for lack of part loyalty. McCain is a whole different kettle of fish.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The question I have to ask is, doesn’t Lieberman have a darn good chance of winning as an Independent now? He got what? 48% of the dem vote? Republicans have to realize that Lieberman is their best bet. Let’s say a portion of Lieberman voting dems are loyal and vote for Lamont in the election, so say maybe 30%-40% of dems vote for Lieberman. Add in 30-40% of the republicans voting for Lieberman, and you have a victory.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Joe Lieberman was not punished for his centrism or his support of the Iraq war; lots of Democrats are farther Right than Lieberman and supported the Iraq war. Lieberman was punished for being insufficiently anti-Republican.
Jon, that assertion isn’t even close to being credible:
Lieberman, who just six years ago was the Democrats’ nominee for vice president, now trails a political novice by double digits among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac Poll released last week. Nearly every Lamont supporter — 94% — cites Lieberman’s support of the war as a reason for his or her choice.
(emphasis added)

See also, this Quinnipiac poll:
In an open-ended question, where voters can give any answer, 35 percent of those likely Democratic primary voters who say Lieberman does not deserve reelection list his support for the war in Iraq as the main reason.

[snip]

"Among the 45 percent of likely Democratic primary voters who think Lieberman shouldn’t be reelected, the biggest group, 35 percent, cite the war in Iraq as the main reason," Dr. Schwartz said. "And 45 percent of likely Democratic primary voters say they would vote against Lieberman solely because of his support of the war."
Michael Moore certainly disagrees with you: "Lieberman’s Support for War Leaves Him Embattled on Left"

Even Lamont doesn’t really agree with you:
Lamont acknowledged that the Iraq war has taken center stage in this unusual intraparty fight that threatens to oust Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, from a relatively secure seat. But he added the election was about much than just Lieberman’s support for the president’s policies in Iraq.

"He’s got 18 years of experience, but he’s using it on the wrong side of the big issues of the day," Lamont told ABC News. "Eighteen years of experience, and he got our troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war in Iraq. Eighteen years of experience, and he’s done nothing for universal health care. Eighteen years of experience, and he’s trying to have it both ways on affirmative action, Social Security."
(emphasis added)
Lamont gives lip service to the idea that the race isn;t about the war, but he undermines that assertion with he assessment of what the race is about.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
The question I have to ask is, doesn’t Lieberman have a darn good chance of winning as an Independent now?
Lieberman wins easily if he runs as an Independent. You heard it hear first . . . well, maybe not first.

The otherwise-inconsequential Republican willl force Lamont further to the left on the War and probably other issues, as well. Lieberman modifies his Iraq position, which he can comfortably do since the whole debate is already shifting to an exit strategy discussion. Lieberman emerges as the sensible centrist with experience, siphons much of the Republican vote, a fair chunk of independents, and enough of the establishment Democrats such as the unions.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Here is what the nutroots think right out of the horse’s ass.

Glad to know I am not on that side.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I must say that I am mystified by the level of antagonism towards McCain. IMO, the guy is a genuine hero, and, especially for a politican, a decidedly honorable man. But that’s a story for another day, I suppose.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
oops, sorry I missed Michael’s reference to the Moore post.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The argument that Liebermann lost not becuase of the war but other things is a Greenwald Hamsher Kos argument (Townhouse talking point).

Greenwald’s favorite booster will appear shortly to attempt refutation, I bet.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Lamont will announce he is for term limits.
 
Written By: Coe
URL: http://
From where I sit, a move the the left isn’t a bad thing. I’m personally tired of voting for Democrats that are really R-lite. It seems to me that we have quickly become a country in which only those who lean right are elected and are considered electable.
If things truly run in cycles, then a move to the left is appropriate.

That said, I have to agree that the CT race was mostly about the war. And when was the last time we saw that? I don’t think it was that Lieberman was not sufficiently anti-Republican. I think it was more specific: that Lieberman was too close to Bush. Dislike of Bush is pretty high, even amongst the Republicans.
 
Written By: Vivian J. Paige
URL: http://vivianpaige.wordpress.com
Joe Lieberman was ousted simply because his votes in the Senate didn’t reflect the views of those who put him into office. This is democracy at its best and all incumbents everywhere should sit up and listen: YOU DON’T OWN THIS COUNTRY- it belongs to the people. Joe Lieberman and the rest of the morons who think they somehow "own" their congressional seats should all be run out of town on a rail. Republicans and Democrats everywhere should purge the garbage from their parties.
 
Written By: Croaker
URL: http://
IMO, the guy is a genuine hero,

And this qualifies one to be President/Senator on what basis? FDR, Asst.-Secty of the Navy, Lincoln 6 weeks militia service.... Grant commanded the Army of the Potomac. Who would YOU chose to govern you?

And WHY is he a hero, let’s ask that? He didn’t doge a SAM and got shot down. Did he do anything amazing? Some POW’s won the Medal of Honour, IIRC. He was tortured and he talked-the last was no big deal, he told them mundane things that were out-of-date—would I want to spend time in the Hanoi Hilton, NO! But is he a hero...I guess I want "hero" defined. He was a brave Naval Aviator, that for whatever reason failed to "zig" at the right time....
and, especially for a politican, a decidedly honorable man.

Is he? Ok mayahp he is... Virginia Postrel had(s) a nice piece at Reason about honour and non-ideological people....She writes about McCAin and Bush 41. yeah, they’re honourable, but they had(ve) no guiding principles either. McCain took money from Keating... NOW money’s Evilllllll, because HIS honour was besmirched. OK, let’s just step on the First Amendment so as to prevent you from having to turn down "big money."

Finally, McCain comes across to me as another "Big Guv’mint" type. D.C. nows what to do better than you. He opposed tax cuts, "leave the money in D.C. to pay down the debt..."... McCain-Feingold, "Trust us we’ll govern better without any opposition".... Yes, he is "honourable" but he thinks HE and people like him, the "Good and Wise" really ought to govern the country and the rest of us simply stand back and marvel at him.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Republicans and Democrats everywhere should purge the garbage from their parties.
Joe Lieberman is a decent and honorable public-servant. Notwithstanding my many policy disagreements with him, the country would be a lot better off if there were many more Joe Liebermans in office. He most certainly is not "garbage."
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
From where I sit, a move the the left isn’t a bad thing.

From where I sit I agree, as a Conservative Republican I urge you to move as far Left as possible
I’m personally tired of voting for Democrats that are really R-lite. It seems to me that we have quickly become a country in which only those who lean right are elected and are considered electable.
Huuu’uuum and this demonstrates that you need to be MORE Leftist? Mayhap it suggests, Ms Kael, that YOU not the country are a little out-of-step. Just a thought.

Republicans and Democrats everywhere should purge the garbage from their parties.
Yes and No, "Duke" Cunningham and Cynthia McKinney are gone, now they seem garbage-like to me... what you mean is that they ought to send home anyone that doesn’t fit some narrow litmus test and that’s a recipe for disaster. But go on try it... you first if you’re a Democrat. And when D- PArty is down to 100 members in the US House and 40 US Senators, let me know how it feels to be "garbage-free" and impotent. You’ll be fired up and ready, ideologically pure and in lockstep and as useful as T*ts on a boar hog, BUT you guys will be pure. And apparently to many that’s important, in fact for many, on Left AND Right, it’s more important to be Right than in power. But that’s another post.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The question I have to ask is, doesn’t Lieberman have a darn good chance of winning as an Independent now?
Actually, the real question is just how much time, money and resources will the Dems have to pour into this solidly Dem senate seat. Quite simply, they’re going to be forced into it, and maybe even more importantly, the nutroots will focus their resources on that seat like a laser.

All to the advantage of the Republicans. Also, I’m sure the press will focus on that race like a laser as well, which again, helps the GOP.

And the wildcard of all- if attacked strongly enough, would a victorious Lieberman NOT caucus with the Dems for numbers purposes? If the Dems alienate him enough, there is an outside chance.

GO KOS, GO!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Capt. Joe, I state my views at Inactivist. And FWIW, I don’t care for Jane Hamsher.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Joe:

You obviously hate McCain and I’m sure you have your reasons. I’ll just respond to a couple of points to clarify what I wrote.

No, I don’t think McCain is a hero simply because he was a naval aviator in combat. That is worthy of respect and gratitude, but is not in itself heroic by my measure. Nor is getting shot down and being gravely injured (though it eludes me why you disparage him for that and intimate that he was a traitor to boot). No, I think McCain is heroic because he refused the offer from the North Vietnamese for an early release from prison, which they wanted for their own public relations purposes (McCain coming from a well-known military family). That, to me, is truly heroic.

Does that alone qualify him to be president? Of course not. But surely you wouldn’t argue that heroism disqualifies someone from the presidency (though that is pretty close to what was suggested in the 2000 primary when the whispers about his sanity surfaced). As for McCain’s involvement with Keating, well, he was wrong and he admitted it. What else is to be done? Again, it escapes me why you mock his feelings of dishonor, and his efforts to atone. Do you want dishonorable people to serve as president? Didn’t we have enough of that with Clinton?

Hey, look on the bright side: You might get a chance to vote against him in 2008.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
McCain’s incumbent protection act (oops I mean the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform) proves beyond a shadow of doubt his contempt for the constitution and renders him unfit to serve as president.

 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
David:
is getting shot down and being gravely injured (though it eludes me why you disparage him for that and intimate that he was a traitor to boot
I didn’t intimate he was a traitor I said he told his interrogators military information, he admits as much himself...that’s not treason but it’s not heroism either, it’s called giving away enough so the pain stops. It’s human, it’s smart, but is it heroism? Audi Murphy is a hero, Adm Stockdale and Cpt Versace are heroes. I just have problems with Jessica Lynch or John McCain being "heroes". They were soldiers, OK I know McCain was a "sailor" we’re looking for the LCD word for person serving their nation in a uniformed capacity, and they were brave, but "heroes" is just an over-used word.

I note you didn’t address my policy philosophy issues with McCain...he opposed tax cuts, arguing that the money would be better spent in D.C. He DID take Keatings money...He did step on the 1st Amendment. He supported the tobacco settlement.

He doesn’t like MY kind of Republican...now who hates who? I’m Cultural AND a Fiscal COnservative, now John McCain seems to thank half of what I believe is not acceptable. But I need to accept him...?

I don’t hate him, I don’t know him. I didn’t hate Bill Clinton, don’t hate Hillary Rodham, don’t like Dubya...I don’t know them either. In a choice between Hillary and McCain, McCain gets my vote, BUT if there is a Democratic Congress I think he’ll be a one-termer like Bush 41, too eager to be a "Moderate" and then he’ll be gone, and that’s assuming that he gets the nomination and that the MSM continue with their current "Maverick" McCain-mania. And that’s unlikely because once the nomination process is over, suddenly John McCain will be a "CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN" and one who used the word "Gooks" to boot.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So Sen. McCain acknowledges having anger-management issues in the past. That goes directly to what I was trying to get across.

For the record, I didn’t get involved with the 2000 Republican primaries.

McCain has as much chance with me as any other Republican who’s voted to curb some of our liberties.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/special3/articles/0803mccain-temper-ON.html
It’s not as if Sen. John McCain hasn’t fessed-up to having anger-management problems in the past.

But as the Arizona Republican eyes another run for the presidency in 2008, questions are again popping up over whether his temper is out of control, and whether he is fit to serve in the Oval Office.

Is this dredging up ancient history? Or is it fair inquiry?

McCain’s political foes say it’s clearly within bounds.

"For a guy with such a short fuse, the road to the presidential election’s going to be a long one," predicts Christy Setzer, a spokeswoman for the Senate Majority Project, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic organization.

But friends, former staffers and some congressional colleagues insist that worries about McCain being too much of a hothead are overblown.

They challenge his accusers to describe any incidents in recent years of McCain, a man constantly in the public limelight, losing his cool.

And when McCain does get upset, they portray his anger as the almost Saint-like zeal of a lawmaker passionately fighting for society’s underdogs.

"Yeah, he gets mad. He gets mad about injustice," said Marshall Wittmann, a former McCain Senate aide and campaign staffer who now works for the Democratic Leadership Council.

"All human beings have their likes and dislikes. But I never saw him get upset and angry in a disproportionate way," Wittmann said, adding, "I just don’t see the relevance of these questions."

But Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said it’s absolutely fair for such questions to be raised, especially of someone running for the presidency.

But Baker said that merely having a temper, as long as it is controlled, shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing for McCain.

"Americans may be ready for a kick-butt president," Baker said. "Especially after all the problems with FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), the failures of the government leading up to 9/11, and the Abramoff (lobbying) scandals."
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
And in his own words from the same article...
McCain and his backers may not want others to talk about his temper. But in his 2002 memoir, Worth the Fighting For, McCain raises the issue himself: "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public’s."

McCain adds, "I have regretted losing my temper on many occasions. But there are things worth getting angry about in politics, and I have at times tried to use my anger to incite public outrage."
Now, this first is a little worrying, the second a reasonable attempt at putting a postive spin on his behavior.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
But enough of John McCain (Moderate-Media) or(R-AZ) the thread is about Lamont and Lieberman...
So is it good, bad, or indifferent that Lieberman will not have "D" after his title in Jan 2007? And his title might not be "Senator" Lieberman in January 2007 anyway.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Lieberman was punished for being insufficiently anti-Republican."
Are you saying that if he had done the same things while being rude to the President, he’d have been OK?
Grassroots dislike for McCain is not due to his lack of conservatism — his voting record is very conservative — but to his being insufficiently anti-Democratic.
Bull$hit. I may well be unable to recognize the legitimacy of a McCain ticket even if voted in by a landslide. McCain-Feingold is the reason.
"the activists protest any claim that they are moving the Party to the Left....that will be the effect, nonetheless."
That much is true.
"The Democrats will gradually shift the rhetorical frame towards more strident opposition to Bush, to Republicans....ultimately, pushing the political frame Left."
Oh it will push the frame they’re in Left.

I hope you don’t mean to say it will push the country Left.

The Democrats will be in a smaller tent farther in Left field is what I hope you mean.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
That—sharp opposition to Republicans and unquestioned loyalty to the Democratic Party—is the litmus test for Democrats today
Nonsense. If that were true, McKinney would have won in a landslide. If anyone is anti-Republican, it is her.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
So is it good, bad, or indifferent that Lieberman will not have "D" after his title in Jan 2007? And his title might not be "Senator" Lieberman in January 2007 anyway.
I think the polls before hand, and the current predictions indicate Lieberman wins anyway. CT Republicans will vote for Lieberman because he is not-Lamont, and stands a better chance of winning.

For the Democrats, it is bad, as they will have to pour more money into the CT race to defeat 2 candidates, an easily beaten Republican, and a still popular sitting Senator.

For the Republicans, it is good, as it gives a talking point to show how ______ the Democrats are. You can fill in the blank with pretty much any negative adjective.

McKinney is a "special" case as she’s just a plain old nut-job.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
McKinney is a "special" case as she’s just a plain old nut-job.

She is a womyn of colour and YOU sirrah MUST be a sexist AND a racist.... and be careful or her supporters will wander in here and begin to speak well of her. It’s like the taboo about mentioning S_t_n, to mention "Ole Scratch" is to summon him.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Croaker,

Is your pseudonym coming from the Croaker who ends up a stone statue at the Hub, contemplating history and multiple realities while giving at least enough power to his wife that she can make rainbow balls fly around?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Goodbye Joe! If you run in November as an Independent, it will prove you are just another self-important, self-glory seeking career politico without regard for your party or America or the future, just yourself. I guess you will never realize that Israel is not the be-all and end-all and center of the universe, no matter how much youy kind and the Arab-hating Far Right try to make it so.
 
Written By: TheRightIs Wrong
URL: http://
Said the party loyalist...
If you run in November as an Independent, it will prove you are just another self-important, self-glory seeking career politico without regard for your party or America or the future, just yourself.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
TheRightIs Wrong
I keep hearing about this "Hate-filled Right" and yet the venom seems to flow mostly from the LEFT...OH well, someone will call me on "selection bias" so I’ll just leave it alone. No doubt you’re right, Lieberman had a little temple/shrine to Isreal and a hot-line to the Isreali Prime Minister’s office, well not a ’phone, just a speaker so the PM could bark his orders to Ole’ "Rape Gurney" Joe.
Gotta go, gotta pop-off to the obligatory "Five Minute Arab Hate" that the Dark Lord Rove commands us on the Right to attend. At least the BBQ is good. And Ann Coulter does a wicked pole dance at the end.

(Ed. Note: yes I know it’s IsrAel, I am just following the usual Left spelling of the nation’s name)
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Goodbye Joe! If you run in November as an Independent, it will prove you are just another self-important, self-glory seeking career politico without regard for your party or America or the future, just yourself.
Along with the other 99 senators and the entire House of Reps...
I guess you will never realize that Israel is not the be-all and end-all and center of the universe, no matter how much youy kind and the Arab-hating Far Right try to make it so
"Your kind" ???? Hmmm....what kind would that be anyway? Care to elaborate? The fact that you yell about Joe and Israel while the rest of the left yells about Joe and Iraq is enlightening to say the least.

Sounds like something MK would write...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Sounds like something MK would write...
Or C. Ford.

Yours, TDP, ml,
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And Ann Coulter does a wicked pole dance at the end.
How do you tell which one’s the pole?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
How do you tell which one’s the pole?
The blonde hair...She is a stick woman, it’s true.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Sorry, but I have to agree with everyone else who says that McCain is disliked for being insufficiently conservative not for being insufficiently anti-democrat.

I’ve seen McCain "carry water" on several television programs for the Republicans. He does that very well, mostly because the media seems to like him a lot. I’ve never heard McCain criticize Bush or other Republicans publicly and I have seen him take it to Democrats on several occasions. He is a popular public figure and in that capacity he has helped the Republican out a lot.

But the reason lots of people hate him is summed up by two words "hyphen Feingold". Some of the worst legislation to come out of Congress in its two hundred plus year history. It’s a major infringement on civil liberties and everybody knows it. And it was McCain’s baby.

Take away W’s social conservative streak, but leave all the big government programs and big government style problem solving and what do you get? John McCain.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
My strong suspicion is that Jon Henke has it just right: McCain is villified in the Republican party for the same reasons Lieberman has been by the Democrats: insufficient party loyalty.

Written By: David Shaughnessy
I can’t speak for the Republican Party (can’t actually recall if I’m currently registered R or L to tell the truth), but I can’t stand McCain.

And party loyalty has nothing to do with it.

It’s campaign finance, gun control, and more generally a feeling that McCain is all about pandering to the press et al, and consequently can’t be trusted.

Furthermore, McCain does give the impression of a emotional/heated personality that is fine in the Senate but not in an executive.

In the gun nut forums I frequent, McCain is generally despised due to his support for gun control and campaign finance.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"But the reason lots of people hate him is summed up by two words "hyphen Feingold". Some of the worst legislation to come out of Congress in its two hundred plus year history."

About as bad as the Alien & Sedition Acts or worse, but they’re bi-partisan enough they aren’t going to go away anytime soon.
"America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Were McCain to be President, and he were to successfully push the campaign finance reform agenda much further, I do not think it would be tolerable to me.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
If things truly run in cycles, then a move to the left is appropriate.

Written By: Vivian J. Paige


A move to the left is fine, if you think we should have a booming economy, low unemployment, and international significance the likes of Germany and France.

It ain’t a cycle Vivian. One side is right, the other wrong. The publication of Mises’ Socialism explained which side was right, but it took repeated real world examples such as stagflation in the’70s, the failure of the USSR, etc. to drive the point home. Of course, some still don’t get it.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And WHY is he a hero, let’s ask that? He didn’t doge a SAM and got shot down. Did he do anything amazing? Some POW’s won the Medal of Honour, IIRC. He was tortured and he talked-the last was no big deal, he told them mundane things that were out-of-date—would I want to spend time in the Hanoi Hilton, NO! But is he a hero...I guess I want "hero" defined. He was a brave Naval Aviator, that for whatever reason failed to "zig" at the right time....
I think he set a record for how short he was in the air before becoming a POW. However, his daddy was a VIP and the commies offered him bennies, and he refused. He could have had it easy, he chose to have it as hard as an ordinary pilot.

Hero? Not in my book, but he definitly showed class and bravery.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You guys can’t seem to let McCain go so I’ll chime in again (as the only person who seems not to despise him).

First, his temper. Who cares? According to all accounts, both Bush and Clinton have terrible tempers. If yoyu think McCain is mean and yells too much, don’t take a job with him, that’s all. (If, on the other hand, this is actually more of the oblique smear that he went insane while a POW, then shame on you.)

Second, McCain-Feingold. As I said, I realize that campaign-finance reform drive some people here crazy (get it?), but I happen to share the belief of many people in the country that money is corrupting the American political system and that this is a problem that should be addressed. Fine, you disagree. But McCain is trying to do what he beleives it right for the country. Moreover, McCain-Feingold was passed by the Congress, signed into law by the President, and upheld against First Amendment challenges by the Supreme Court. I simply don’t see how, under those circumstances, you can allege that McCain has trampled the First Amendment. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on what the First Amendment means but the Supreme Court decides that issue, not me and not you.

Third, I remain utterly nonplussed by the nastiness directed at McCain’s military service. For god’s sake, give the man his due, then vote against him if you like.

Well, there’s a lot more but I suspect we’ll revisit this again in the near future . . .
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
“Greenwald’s favorite booster will appear shortly to attempt refutation, I bet.” - Capt Joe

Here I state my view of Mona. Mona
Confirms
that view (just as Capt Joe predicted):
“Whether the strong opposition to Lieberman was predominantly driven by his stalwart defense of the Iraq war — and Jon Henke doesn’t think so, for reasons I agree with -...”
“A party that delivers what the public wants is responsive, not suicidal.”
Guess which party Mona is referring to? Capt Joe is onto the game. Propaganda is much more effective if the source can be represented as neutral. I say Mona is a very strong Democratic partisan flying false colors.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
A move to the left is fine, if you think we should have a booming economy, low unemployment, and international significance the likes of Germany and France.
Yes, the economy really went into the toilet when we moved to the left in 1992.

God, do your research.

As for the Dems moving to the left by electing Lamont, last time I looked being against "nation building" wars in which we have no viable exit strategy used to be a conservative virtue.

If you are for the Iraq war, you are a loser. Simple fact. Some of us, Lamont included, don’t like to be losers. Turns out most on the right do. Who would have thunk it.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
If you are for the Iraq war, you are a loser. Simple fact. Some of us, Lamont included, don’t like to be losers. Turns out most on the right do. Who would have thunk it.
If you are against winning the Iraq war, you are a quiter. Simple fact. Some of us, Lieberman included, don’t like to be quiters. Turns out most on the left do. Who would have thunk it.

Heh - I guess, broad boilerplate statements can be made to fit any situation...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Mr. Fulton: Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings invited me to guest blog there for a week, beginning today. It so happens that in my post introducing myself to libertarian Jim’s readers, I address my posture toward the Democratic Party.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Nonsense. If that were true, McKinney would have won in a landslide. If anyone is anti-Republican, it is her.

Written By: mkultra
But mkultra, she’s off the map, even compared to you.

However, IIRC she was right with respect to Kelo.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Yes, the economy really went into the toilet when we moved to the left in 1992.

God, do your research.
What move to the left? We elected a "centrist" Democrat who spun his wheels for two years pushing a doomed health plan, and who’s most significant left wing accomplishment was a rifle ban that has since expired.

Then we elected a conservative congress, and the "centrist" president signed welfare reform and NAFTA.

Bill Clinton’s legacy is signing Republican legislation and a bunch of awful EOs.

If you want to know what a move leftward looks like, look to Europe. America cerca ’92 isn’t it.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
David S. wrote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on what the First Amendment means but the Supreme Court decides that issue, not me and not you.
No. I won’t just follow orders.

The Supreme Court doesn’t get to say white is black and have it mean anything to me.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Oh, yeah, and Bill’s capital gains tax cuts cut the deficit, although despite claims otherwise it was never balanced. Bill has lots to thank Republicans for, including every good thing he signed.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If you are for the Iraq war, you are a loser. Simple fact. Some of us, Lamont included, don’t like to be losers. Turns out most on the right do. Who would have thunk it.


Bush loosing the 2004 election makes your point.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I say Mona is a very strong Democratic partisan flying false colors.

Written By: Robert Fulton



She has made some statements that indicate she really is libertarian, at least in some sense. Democrats don’t have a clue about Austrian econ.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The question I have to ask is, doesn’t Lieberman have a darn good chance of winning as an Independent now? He got what? 48% of the dem vote? Republicans have to realize that Lieberman is their best bet. Let’s say a portion of Lieberman voting dems are loyal and vote for Lamont in the election, so say maybe 30%-40% of dems vote for Lieberman. Add in 30-40% of the republicans voting for Lieberman, and you have a victory.

Written By: ChrisB
The script would have been better if the Republicans had known this civil war was coming and fielded a credible candidate. This one, Selig something or other is a step up from the last Rep guy Giordando who was a child molester - but not much. But it is enough to be interesting, anyways. The Dem activists are now agitating for the Dems to say that Lieberman will be stripped of his committee spots if he is elected "for blocking a good democrat who beat him fair and square". Lieberman is likely to prevail, though besides the Lamont anti-War crowd, the guy has a perception of not being a CT Senator representing the state - but only global issues that Joe cares about..

The truth is Lieberman is more liberal than all but 10 or so Senators. If the Dems were vindictive and punished him despite his saying he would align as a Dem - I’m not sure the Republicans would want him, other than to claim "Big Tent!!" through gritted teeth.
Jon - Joe Lieberman was not punished for his centrism or his support of the Iraq war; lots of Democrats are farther Right than Lieberman and supported the Iraq war. Lieberman was punished for being insufficiently anti-Republican.

MichaelW - Jon, that assertion isn’t even close to being credible:
Lieberman, who just six years ago was the Democrats’ nominee for vice president, now trails a political novice by double digits among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac Poll released last week. Nearly every Lamont supporter — 94% — cites Lieberman’s support of the war as a reason for his or her choice.
MichaelW - 29 Democratic Senators voted for the War. The "Murtha" type bail out of Iraq reolutions that went down in flames in the House with 6-22 votes for, the ones the Senate refuses to go on record for. Only 7-8 have publicly recanted and done a George Romney "I was duped, misled, hornswaggled, and brainwashed" mea culpa. The rest, including Hillary, the Nelsons - have not been called out. Only Lieberman....because he went high profile in op-eds and on TV and schmoozed with Dubya.

I disagree with those that say McCain is the most hated RINO. He isn’t because he campaigns hard and carries water for the inarticulate Dubya on several issues. Giuliani has also saved Republican bacon and done thousands of hours in the trenches for Party organizing and fundraising. Even Chaffee is sorta ignored as more proof that political talent and even all round brains and ability don’t work in the Chaffee Family anymore than in the Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Bush families. I would say the most hated RINO is Spector, who rarely campaigns for others, backstabs, lies to other Senators, and is one of the two most personally disliked people in the Senate, according to Hill staffers (along with Kerry).
Joe - And this qualifies one (McCain as war-hero) to be President/Senator on what basis? FDR, Asst.-Secty of the Navy, Lincoln 6 weeks militia service.... Grant commanded the Army of the Potomac. Who would YOU chose to govern you?
I’d add a Hollywood movie lot soldier named Reagan, a fiddle around lawyer who never faced the enemy named Jefferson, and a 5-Star bald general that never was in combat himself, and a draft-dodging Centrist Democrat.
Joe - And WHY is he a hero, let’s ask that? He didn’t doge a SAM and got shot down. Did he do anything amazing?
We now have a tendency not to just overuse hero the same we pander and say everyone is "above average" - but to assign heroes by victimhood or class. Fighting for your life, as many a doomed cancer patient does bravely, a person being drowned, a Flight 93 passenger - does not make one a hero. A cop or firefighter - by job class - is not a "hero" due to job duties and risk - otherwise we would be calling all farmers and taxi drivers and miners of higher risk, and just as indispensible to society - jobs - of all being collective heroes. Nor does the unusual accomplishment of Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods - which makes them sports heroes, make all bikers and golfers heroes. Something we should be wise to consider when we spout maxims like "all soldiers, cops, firefighters, teachers are heroes!!" Or our other perverse new habit - to make heroes based on purly on victimhood and perceived "suffering". A 9/11 widow is supposedly a hero and deserves the taxpayer money to be a multimillionaire based on "special suffering" - that the non-hero widow of a mugging victim is denied.

One of the oddest blanket "hero" categories the media and advocates have created demanded be specially honored is POW.

Historically, the act of surrender and being captive to the enemy has carried a mild or severe stigma of dishonor. In America, since Vietnam, it has totally been flipped. The act of surrendering to the enemy qualifies you for a special military medal, special pay and benefit status, 1st promotion assuming you are in the top cohort of all officers as a POW, instant hero status, qualifies you to head any parade of Vets as a sort of military royalty, even gives you your own special little flag that the Cult of the POW-Hero insists fly everywhere. Even a resume item any politican would envy over a medal for actual valor.

If John Kerry had done nothing but get lost and captured without a fight on a mission, been made a POW, no matter who he schmoozed with behind bars....rather than a lesser "combat decoree" odds are he’d be President.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
I say Mona is a very strong Democratic partisan flying false colors.

Written By: Robert Fulton



She has made some statements that indicate she really is libertarian, at least in some sense. Democrats don’t have a clue about Austrian econ.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If you are against winning the Iraq war, you are a quiter. Simple fact. Some of us, Lieberman included, don’t like to be quiters. Turns out most on the left do. Who would have thunk it
In war, better to be a quitter than a loser. Quitters live to fight another day. Losers die. Yes, let’s quit this stupid war we should have never started in the first place, instead of sending more Americans to die so Sadr can shout death to Israel and America in the streets of Baghdad.

(Why does the right love Sadr so much they are willing to send American troops to die to keep him in power?)

Little noticed in this debate - and an election Henke ignores, not surpisingly, because it doesn’t fit his narrative - is the defeat last night of incumbent Repblican Congressman Joe Schwarz in Michigan. His sin? He was pro-choice. You know, keep government out of our lives and all that? Let the woman decide, not the government. Well, the GOP can’t have any of that.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"In war, better to be a quitter than a loser. Quitters live to fight another day. Losers die."
This is a war America can only plausibly lose by quitting too soon.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Jon, that assertion isn’t even close to being credible:
Lieberman, who just six years ago was the Democrats’ nominee for vice president, now trails a political novice by double digits among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac Poll released last week. Nearly every Lamont supporter — 94% — cites Lieberman’s support of the war as a reason for his or her choice.
What do you think the Democrats — especially the ’influentials’ — disliked about Lieberman’s stance on the war? It wasn’t that he was for it; lots of Democrats were and are for the war. Lieberman’s problem was that he was a vocal supporter of Bush on the war and a critic of the Democrats on the war. Had he merely supported the war quietly, he’d have had no problem. But he chose to align himself more closely with Republicans on the war.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Mr. Ford writes:
One of the oddest blanket "hero" categories the media and advocates have created demanded be specially honored is POW.

Historically, the act of surrender and being captive to the enemy has carried a mild or severe stigma of dishonor. In America, since Vietnam, it has totally been flipped. The act of surrendering to the enemy qualifies you for a special military medal, special pay and benefit status, 1st promotion assuming you are in the top cohort of all officers as a POW, instant hero status, qualifies you to head any parade of Vets as a sort of military royalty, even gives you your own special little flag that the Cult of the POW-Hero insists fly everywhere. Even a resume item any politican would envy over a medal for actual valor.
According to Wiki, this was John McCain’s "act of surrender":
On October 26, 1967, McCain was shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk over Vietnam, by a Soviet-made anti-aircraft missile, and was held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for five-and-a-half years, mostly in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. McCain had two broken arms and a broken leg after he ejected from his plane. McCain landed in Truc Bach Lake. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers. He was bayonetted in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by another soldier’s rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hanoi Hilton, also known as Hoa Lo Prison.
If you would like a more authoritative source I’d be happy to provide it for you. I do agree that the concept of "hero" has been trivialized (like "superstar") in American culture. But in McCain’s case, I already addressed that point in a prior post, which I will repeat for your convenience:
No, I don’t think McCain is a hero simply because he was a naval aviator in combat. That is worthy of respect and gratitude, but is not in itself heroic by my measure. Nor is getting shot down and being gravely injured (though it eludes me why you disparage him for that and intimate that he was a traitor to boot). No, I think McCain is heroic because he refused the offer from the North Vietnamese for an early release from prison, which they wanted for their own public relations purposes (McCain coming from a well-known military family). That, to me, is truly heroic.
Frankly, this SwiftBoating of McCain is repulsive.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
In war, better to be a quitter than a loser. Quitters live to fight another day. Losers die. Yes, let’s quit this stupid war we should have never started in the first place, instead of sending more Americans to die so Sadr can shout death to Israel and America in the streets of Baghdad.
Written By: mkultra
Historically, you "quit" a war by running away. That’s when the real slaughter begins: few are usually killed in the battle proper, but once you begin to flee you are cut down like prey.

So, quitter = looser in most cases.

This is not to say that sometimes it is better to pass on a fight, or make a tactical withdrawl. But I wouldn’t call that "quitting", that’s just picking your battle.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
David,

Kerry lied about "Xmas in Cambodia" and he lied to get his first Purple Heart (and hence, the ability to quit when he did).

No one is claiming McCain has a similar past, but he has dubious hero status. But he’s not liked because he’s wrong on key issues, and this is compounded by emotional issues.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"McCain had two broken arms and a broken leg after he ejected from his plane. McCain landed in Truc Bach Lake."

He went out of the jet at over five hundred knots.

I’ve studied military aviation all my life, and I can’t even imagine what that must be like. I’ve been in three death-defying motorcycle crashes — which is violence that you just have to experience in order to believe — and the idea of something like a high-speed combat ejection stretches my concept of horror right out off the hook.

My contempt for John McCain is just about boundless. I say that he should have found honest work.

But this rubbish about "surrender" is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
David get over McCain already, luckily you will get to vote FOR HIM in 2008. He’s not being "swift Boated" at two levels: No yes he is, David. YOU mean "Swift Boating" as people spreading malicious lies about his otherwise exemplary service in Vietnam!

I mean yes he’s being Swift Boated, people are telling the TRUTH about his service.

The difference between John Kerry and McCain is that McCain’s story is a better more, noble story, service, imprisonment, torture, release. John Kerry: joined the USN, sought out a reasonably safe posting in the Swift Boats (then in OFF-SHORE patrol), "gamed" a very gameable system for a short tour and then proceeded to EXCRETE upon all his fellow service persons in Congressional testimony and Winter Soldier Hearings, spewing Leftwing trash and LIES. In short, Kerry’s military career and aftermath didn’t come off so hot.

McCain tough dude, suffered more than I could, Kerry he got shot at and hit, by something, and proceeded sign up as an enemy propagandist... there’s a BIG difference.

But yes, I’m Swift-Boating McCain if by that you mean I am not going to buy the HAGIOGRAPHY of John McCain HERO... "Google" "Versace" "POW" "Medal of honor" or "Stockdale" "Medal of honor"... those guys get "hero". John McCain gets my respect, gets a hearty "Thank you for your service to our country. I could NOT have done what you did". But he don’t get hero... you want a "Hero" I don’t know troll thru the Roll of honour here and get one of the Navy Cross or Distinguished Service Cross guys to run.

McCain’s war record or Dubya’s is fairly IMMATERIAL to Presidential worthiness. I don’t much care for McCain’s record, you do; you get to vote for him. Just give his war record a rest, because as I repeat he’s not a hero and even if he were one, what difference would it make as to why he needs to be President?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Mona, thank you for confirming my hypothesis (you really had no other choice, now did you). Having identified yourself correctly as a Democrat-supporting person who calls herself a libertarian, we all now know for sure where you are coming from. Your motives and whether or not you are a hired gun are merely gossipy details. You are just another version of MK.
Good luck on your quest.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
DavidShaughnessey - I repeat. Historically, the POW was not lionized on repatriation as a hero. Welcome home treatment ranged from being executed by Stalin to a "glad you’re home" no-fanfare welcome no different than a wounded soldier got, and a "thank you for serving". More often than not, by culture, there was a stigma attached to surrender. In some cases, like downed pilots captured deep in enemy territory, where there was little option, there was more lienency.

But only America made ANY POW into a celebrity Superhero.

And the funny thing is it was Nixon and his political advisors who started the Cult of the POW/MIA as a way to get more political support for Nixon at the Peace talks. The Nixon White House created the bracelet idea, grabbed some housewife’s flag idea and tried making it the co-national ensign, and got other POW paraphenalia marketed. After Nixon’s fall, the Cult of the POW/MIA took off on its own and after their "secret hollow mountain phase" got into the idea of spending millions to "Bring the Boys home" or the insipid mantra of "No Man Left Behind!" so the "sacred bones of closure" can end the torment of the widow now on her 3rd marriage...as well as veneration of the POW/MIA flag....

You start as so many do in present day Hero definition - by relying on Victim-Hood as establishing McCains hero-status.

McCain had two broken arms and a broken leg after he ejected from his plane. McCain landed in Truc Bach Lake. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers. He was bayonetted in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by another soldier’s rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hanoi Hilton,
Then after detailing his Victimhood, you deny it is the cause. Instead, you gravitate to his refusing to end his victimhood and bail on the other POWs as "heroic" - ignoring the grapevine order from his superiors was no one goes home until every POW goes home - the badly hurt and wounded excepted. McCain was marginal because he had disability from badly treated wounds, and few would have objected if he agreed to be a propaganda tool to obtain release - but just about all POWs in similar condition obeyed the order and refused release.
No, I don’t think McCain is a hero simply because he was a naval aviator in combat. That is worthy of respect and gratitude, but is not in itself heroic by my measure. Nor is getting shot down and being gravely injured (though it eludes me why you disparage him for that and intimate that he was a traitor to boot). No, I think McCain is heroic because he refused the offer from the North Vietnamese for an early release from prison, which they wanted for their own public relations purposes (McCain coming from a well-known military family). That, to me, is truly heroic.
No, McCain got back and was evaluated as comporting himself in the best traditions of a naval aviator. If he is a hero, it is because he was in one of the most demanding, high risk military jobs there was plus his conduct as an officer facing the enemy, though McCain was not awarded the highest decorations. I don’t look at military positions the same as civilian jobs like cop or taxi driver that come with slight danger and occasional expectations of bravery...because certain military postions in wartime just about guarantee daily courage, high risk of death with little financial compensation, and true heroism are involved in a small or large scale.

My objections were to the idea that simply being a POW makes one a hero, be it McCain, Jessica Lynch, Rhonda Cornum, the Shoshana cook who was feted as a hero and dropped the New Year’s Ball on Times Square...That POWs are so special they merit a National Flag and premium media glorification over the 99.9% of other soldiers who fight, die, are wounded, or demonstrate meritorious bravery against the enemy w/o ending up in their custody.

 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Not that it means anything, but all the opposition to McCain here seems to be idealogical rather than a dislike of his lack of partisanship.


"...and his efforts to atone."

By doing what?


"Historically, the act of surrender and being captive to the enemy has carried a mild or severe stigma of dishonor."

In this country or other civilized countries like Great Britain? Show me. As far as other, less civilized countries, who cares?


"Frankly, this SwiftBoating of McCain is repulsive."

I don’t know what your definition of "SwiftBoating" is, but I suspect it is not complimentary to the swiftboat veterans. If so, I take issue with that. Perhaps you can tell me why over 200 veterans relating their personal experiences is despicable?

McCain reminds me of Joe McCarthy. McCarthy used to wave a piece of paper during his hearings on which was written, so he claimed, the names of over 400 Communists in the State department. McCain goes about talking of the 534 congressmen and senators who have been corrupted by money. Neither actually produced any names.

As for heroism, it is irrelevant as a qualification for public office. So why does almost every introduction or mention of McCain start off with a paen to his heroism? Perhaps to prempt objections and opposition to his policies? Sort of a reverse ad hominem thing?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I won’t continue arguing about McCain right now, there will be plenty of time for that later. I’ll just say this: As regular readers of this blog know, every week McQ runs a Project Hero column detailing some soldier who has acted with bravery, honor, distinction — in short, heroically. Based upon what I’m seeing here with McCain, and with what happpened to John Kerry, I have no doubt — no doubt whatsoever — that if, say ten or twenty years down the road, one of McQ’s heros were to run for president, people would surface who would disparage the bona fides of his heroism. I think that is wrong. I think it is nasty, brutish, and stupid. I think it is destructive to this country and to our politics. And yet people complain that this culture is coarsened and dishonorable. And yet people despair that there are so few honorable people in public service.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Whatever David, just remember those guys who won the Navy Cross and DSC had their efforts examined and validated... John Kerry just won’t release his records. And I would ask 20 years from now, "How does the possession of a Navy Cross make you more or LESS qualified to be President."

Remember, Dave, a Medal of Honour Winner DID run for President "Bob" Kerrey, SEAL won the Medal of Honour for action in Vietnam... he ain’t President. As the Economist said of HIM, "One wild night in the South China Sea does not a President make..."I wouldn’t vote for Bob Kerrey, but I will ackowledge that in his mid-20’s he became a member of one of the elite fighting units in the world, that in such august company his actions stood out, and that as a "soldier" Kerrey has my respect, awe and esteem, just not my vote, because he’s a Liberal Democrat. His service is irrelevant... as is McCains’ or Dubya’s or Kerry’s....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
," people would surface who would disparage the bona fides of his heroism"

And I have no doubt that people would disparage those who do so, no matter how many of them and no matter how great their own accomplishments. And of course no matter what the truth is.
You have accused over 200 veterans of dishonorable and dishonest behavior with absolutely no evidence. Yes, that is nasty.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
You have accused over 200 veterans of dishonorable and dishonest behavior with absolutely no evidence.
I have done no such thing. That you have chosen to interpret my comments that way says much more about you than me. And furthermore, if anyone of those 200 veterans ran for office and had attack dogs savaging his military record I would call that disgraceful. Would you?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
David you’re funny... the "attack dogs" tell the truth and they are "Savaging" someone. I’d just say that they are "Speaking Truth to Power." Any way YOUR candidate will be OK, he didn’t appear at the Winter Soldier Hearings and claim he witnessed or perpetrated War Crimes akin the Jenjis Khan...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe:

I have said this several times now but maybe if I say it really loud sommeone will listen: I DO NOT ARGUE THAT MCCAIN’S MILITARY SERVICE QUALIFIES HIM FOR THE PRESIDENCY. In a nation that purports to honor military service, however, it is perverse that an honorable military record is turned against veterans who do run for office.

Also, if you think Kerry was ignoble (or whatever) when he turned against the Vietnam War in the way he did, that’s fine. Attack him for that. I, personally, feel that Kerry is a lifelong political opportunist who does not merit much regard on that level. However, that does not, in my opinion, justify attacking his service record. That is a very dangerous precedent, regardless of Kerry and McCain.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Well Dave, HIS RECORD WAS SUSPECT AND HE MADE HIS RECORD A CENTRE-PIECE OF HIS CAMPAIGN, or did you forget, "John Kerry reporting for Duty."? He served in Vietnam you know... and had a number of things SEARED into his memory, of course the fact that they couldn’t possibly be true is no reason to doubt him...as long as he’s Bluto Blutarski and in Animal House. But otherwise I think it’s fair game to point out that the man who learned so much from his Vietnam service was making a lot of it up! So if any candiate wants to "report for duty" again, he needs to be pretty clear about what his "duty" was.

I note you have yet to point out WHERE the SBVFT LIED, you complain that they spoke of Kerry’s record... Gee If they had lied I’d have more sympathy for your point of view, but you seem to neglect that, so it seems you object to someone criticizing a candidate. To carry it further, it’s one of the reasons you may Like McCain and I can’t stomach him. Because the two of you both seem to question the right of the Hoi-Poloi to question their betters on their claims....How Dare THEY, how DARE they question his claims!? I don’t know what’s wrong with it? McCain just seems to think that once you’re in the World’s Greatest Debating Society, then one should be immune from the Common Herd questioning one of its members.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe:

My objection is to trashing someone’s combat record long after the fact. You ask if Kerry’s wartime comrades lied when he ran for president. Well, how do I know? How do you know? How does anyone other than than the people who were there, what, thirty years ago on the other side of the world. And once someone decides to run for president the knives will come out. That is the point. I think it is detrimental to our politics and denigrates military service.

Now as for this:
it seems you object to someone criticizing a candidate. To carry it further, it’s one of the reasons you may Like McCain and I can’t stomach him. Because the two of you both seem to question the right of the Hoi-Poloi to question their betters on their claims....How Dare THEY, how DARE they question his claims!? I don’t know what’s wrong with it? McCain just seems to think that once you’re in the World’s Greatest Debating Society, then one should be immune from the Common Herd questioning one of its members.

I really have no idea what that means. If your objection is that politicians have large egos, well good luck fiinding humbler ones to vote for.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://

"I have done no such thing"

Perhaps I have misinterpreted what I take to be disparaging comments about the Swiftboat veterans. Are they telling the truth or not? What is their motive? I am confused. In the very next sentence you imply that they "savaged" Kerry’s record. Is that honorable behavior?

"However, that does not, in my opinion, justify attacking his service record."

Why is his service record more sacrosanct than anyone elses? And why is a service record more off limits than any other aspect of a candidates record?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"My objection is to trashing someone’s combat record long after the fact"

So any trashing must be done immediately or not at all?



"Well, how do I know? How do you know? How does anyone other than than the people who were there, what, thirty years ago on the other side of the world"

Well, that doesn’t seem to prevent you from reaching the conclusion that the SBVFT are savaging his record.

"I think it is detrimental to our politics and denigrates military service"

Nonsense. Since when is Kerry, or any individual, the avatar of military service? You are starting to sound as pompous as Kerry. I guess any derogatory comments about Lt. W. Calley are out of bounds, too. Thanks for the laugh, though.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
You ask if Kerry’s wartime comrades lied when he ran for president. Well, how do I know? How do you know? How does anyone other than than the people who were there, what, thirty years ago on the other side of the world.
One of the ways, especially in Kerry’s case, was to know how things happen or are supposed to happen (within the military) and then examine the claims he made and the documentation available. They just didn’t add up.

That said, in McCain’s case, I agree with Billy Beck. It’s just silly to talk about anything the man did as "surrender."
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"How does anyone other than than the people who were there, what, thirty years ago on the other side of the world"

I have heard this argument before, and it is so preposterous that I just had to revisit it. It seems to be used by those who weren’t there to cast doubt on the accuracy of the memories of those who were, and to imply that their motives are less than pure.

I am reminded of the story about the blind men and the elephant. Everyone there had only a piece of the elephant, but with enough pieces a fairly accurate depiction of the elephant is possible. The key is to avoid taking one’s own piece as being characteristic of the whole. More pieces are more accurate than one piece.
In my case, I am confident with my recollection that the piece I was given was mighty like a shaft.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider