Today on Blogcritics
Home » John McCain’s Image: True or Tainted?

John McCain’s Image: True or Tainted?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Senator and Republican presidential candidate John Sidney McCain III spends much of his stump time regaling his devotees with stories of how he is – at least since his release from North Vietnam's "Hanoi Hilton" prison – a genuine military hero who has always put "country first." To the contrary, there is evidence that he has always put John McCain first.

A recent Rolling Stone article written by Tim Dickinson, "Make-Believe Maverick", goes some distance in casting a shadow over the Arizona Senator's supposed hero status.

McCain freely admits that he led a lackluster youth, much of it spent carousing and womanizing, and that he was a poor student at the Naval Academy graduating fourth from the bottom of his class. However, he rarely, if ever, has mentioned how he repeatedly took advantage of his family ties — both his father and grandfather were Naval admirals. It was his family connections that got him into the Naval Academy in the first place, something that he likely would not have otherwise accomplished. It was through his father's intervention that John III was saved from expulsion from the Academy on more than one occasion. He used this same influence in obtaining most of his assignments during much of his military career.

Nor does he mention that he was a less than able pilot. Beside the A4 jet lost when he was shot down over Hanoi, McCain managed to lose no fewer than three other planes owing to his lack of piloting skills. None of these incidents involved combat.

Dickinson includes statements from a number of former fellow Navy colleagues and other acquaintances who claim that McCain was a short-tempered, spiteful bully and misogynist both before and after his time as a POW.

Much has been made of John McCain's POW experience in Vietnam during the last several months of campaigning for the presidency. No one will dispute that it was an horrific experience. But Dickinson claims there are issues regarding McCain's version of events during the five-plus years of his captivity. McCain claims that he was tortured and pretty much left to die until his captors discovered that he was the son of an American admiral. What he doesn't relate is that it was McCain himself who informed the Vietnamese of his family ties. According to some fellow POWs, McCain rather readily gave up much more than his name, rank, and serial number while held captive.

To be fair, very few POWs actually manage to adhere strictly to that code. However, according to fellow POW, Air Force Lt. Col. John Dramesi, McCain's behavior as a prisoner, while certainly not dishonorable, was also not exceptional. He managed generally no better nor no worse than the average POW. He did what was necessary to survive. There is certainly no dishonor in that. But, that McCain has chosen to highlight this experience and create the sense that his conduct was exceptionally heroic, leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many former POWs. McCain has and continues to use his POW experience expressly to further his political fortunes.

There is a great deal more to discover in Dickinson's article. McCain's propensity to promote John McCain above all else continues throughout his political career. Dickinson notes that despite what a number of his fellow Senators may say, McCain has few true friends. He is just not a particularly likable guy. The portrait Tim Dickinson paints of John McCain is far different than the one the Arizona Senator would like you to see.

Powered by

About Baritone

  • Jeff

    What bullshit! At least Mc Cain served his country. Obama wasn’t even a cub scout! Besides his “nice guy”, even tempered smooth talking, what has Obama to offer?
    I’d rather have an average, sometimes bad tempered guy in office anytime over an “empty suit”.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Well, that’s pretty reprehensible, and packed with some vicious little innuendo too.

    McCain claims that he was tortured and pretty much left to die until his captors discovered that he was the son of an American admiral. What he doesn’t relate is that it was McCain himself who informed the Vietnamese of his family ties.

    Actually, McCain is on record admitting this in the interview he gave to US News and World Report when he returned from Vietnam.

    According to some fellow POWs, McCain rather readily gave up much more than his name, rank, and serial number while held captive.

    Given the physical condition which he was in, which was inherently much worse than other prisoners I think that’s fairly understandable. Unlike other prisoners he needed substantial medical treatment just to survive.

    To be fair, very few POWs actually manage to adhere strictly to that code.

    And all of them were explicitly exonerated of any wrongdoing by a naval commission after the fact.

    However, according to fellow POW, Air Force Lt. Col. John Dramesi, McCain’s behavior as a prisoner, while certainly not dishonorable, was also not exceptional. He managed generally no better nor no worse than the average POW. He did what was necessary to survive.

    Except that he was in much worse condition than any other POW who survived from the very start, and did what other POWs did despite massive physical injuries which left him permanently crippled. Plus unlike other prisoners when given the opportunity to leave Vietnam he did refuse to do so until others who had been there longer were freed. That one act makes him exceptional.

    And for the record, the McCain campaign has 100 fellow prisoners who will verify his account of his actions and time in Vietnam.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    but that still doesn’t qualify him to be president.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    It currently appears that the “empty suit” may well kick McCain’s ass on November 4th.

    While I can’t attest to the truth of Dickinson’s article, it is reasonably well documented.

    I think it’s telling that right wingers prefer an asshole in the WH. Of course, that goes without saying given its present tenant.

    I don’t believe that military service is a prerequisite for the presidency. Afterall, Bush only barely met that standard.

    I really liked the comment in Dickinson’s article stating that Bush was actually a better pilot than McCain.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Bush didn’t log anywhere near the number of flight hours as McCain and didn’t fly off aircraft carriers. It sounds like Dickinson doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about, or is just spewing some partisan bullshit.

    And McCain’s experience in government is what qualifies him for the presidency, obviously – not his POW experience.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Several other prisoners were also offered early release and refused. In order to obtain an early release the prisoners would have had to make signed statements against the US that could have been cause for court marshall.

    McCain was NOT exceptional except insofar as he managed to survive while others didn’t.

    In the case of Lt. Col. Dramesi, he did NOT give any more information other than his name, rank, serial number and date of birth. He also attempted two escapes.

    Regardless of the POW episode, the article goes to some length in describing the loutish behavior of McCain both before and after Vietnam. In a word, McCain was and is a prick. He has little regard for others and has always tooted his own horn forever trying to surpass the accomplishments of his father and grandfather. In his own way, McCain came from a wholly “insider,” privileged and elitist background. He took full advantage of his family connections to get whatever the hell he wanted. He was a spoiled DC brat.

    Dave, a few months ago you had little or nothing good to say about McCain. Now, since you have gone off the deep end as regards Obama, you’ve got your nose so far up McCain’s ass, it’s a wonder you can even breathe.

    B

  • zingzing

    oh, he’s breathing. the sweet smell of 72-year-old digestive issues.

  • bliffle

    McCain was advised by the US POW commander that if he took early release he would be court-martialed. That was SOP. And that is the reason he didn’t take early release.

    Nobody witnessed McCain being tortured.

    McCain has always been a Navy brat and has never earned his income. He has always been on the government payroll. Little wonder he has so little regard for people who don’t have the family advantages he had by fortunate birth, and who must struggle their entire lives for their daily bread.

    McCain is a spoiled elitist.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I won’t question whether McCain was tortured. It was pretty much standard procedure at the time. His physical condition now attests to it.

    But the rest holds true. Even though, as Dave recounts, most former POWs were exonerated for any wrong doing during their captivity, none of them expected that at the time.

    By any standard, McCain was not a good pilot. He retained his wings, again solely owing to his father’s influence.

    Dickinson tells of one jet McCain lost after having commandeered a plane to attend the Army/Navy football game (presumably at government expense,) he stalled out while attempting to make a routine landing at Norfolk Naval Air Station for refueling.

    Another instance of poor flying occured while “hot dogging” over Spain deviating from his flight plan and flying far lower than allowed, he managed to slice through a power line which “plunged much of the area into a blackout.”
    It goes on.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Several other prisoners were also offered early release and refused. In order to obtain an early release the prisoners would have had to make signed statements against the US that could have been cause for court marshall.

    Yes, but they all signed those statements anyway, including McCain. And BTW, it’s ‘martial’ not ‘marshall’.

    McCain was NOT exceptional except insofar as he managed to survive while others didn’t.

    He did survive far worse injuries than most and also stayed longer than most. Plus when he came back he attracted the attention of the media and became a spokesman for all the POWs, which made him significant.

    But say he’s no more exceptional than any other POW. So? They all deserve to be honored. But he’s the only one running for president. That decision doesn’t diminish him relative to other POWs does it?

    Dave, a few months ago you had little or nothing good to say about McCain. Now, since you have gone off the deep end as regards Obama, you’ve got your nose so far up McCain’s ass, it’s a wonder you can even breathe.

    A few months ago we didn’t have a bipolar race between McCain and Obama. It changes things. On the whole I’m indifferent towards McCain. In what I’ve written here I’m defending the truth more than McCain himself. I make no effort to defend his shortcomings. But no matter what is wrong with him and there’s plenty – so far it’s not even in the same order of magnitude as the problems with Obama.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Military tactical aircraft are inherently unsafe aircraft. They are designed for agility and performance, not safety, and several crash every year, even in peacetime..

    Hotdogging among military pilots is as common as fleas on a dog. The last person you want in the cockpit of a fighter is some Calvinist tightass with a poker up his butt.

    Just sayin’

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Come on Clavos, George H. W. was a good pilot despite the poker up his butt.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I’m wrong. Dickinson is wrong. McCain is a fucking prince. He shits honey.

    No, I take that back. He’s a lying, self-aggrandizing asshole. Few military pilots loose three planes as did McCain and retain their flight privileges. McCain did so because of daddy.

    McCain sought the media attention upon his return, not the other way around. As Dickinson notes, McCain left ship after the fire on the Forrestal with the media and characterized his role in the event as one in which he was instrumental in bringing the fires under control, when in actuality, he went below decks where he remained until the fires were under control. Perhaps he was directed to do so, but he had little or nothing to do with the turn of events after he escaped his plane. McCain enlarged his role for media consumption. Again, it’s ALL about John McCain. I’m not saying he was a coward. I am saying he is a liar who will say and do anything to get ahead. He is far more driven in that regard than is either Obama or Clinton.

    Dave, you are promoting the “truth” as you would prefer it to be. McCain ain’t Rambo and he ain’t John Wayne. He is a small, spiteful, condescending troll.

    Martial – yeah, yeah.

    B

  • Clavos

    I’m not saying he was a coward. I am saying he is a liar who will say and do anything to get ahead.

    Yawn. He’s a politician.

    ************

    “I will lower taxes for 95% of Americans.”

  • Baronius

    McCain has campaigned a lot like Kerry did, focusing on thirty years ago rather than on what he’s done subsequently, or plans to do in the future. There’s a little bit of bully in both of them, and they like to brag. That being said, there are a lot more question marks about Kerry’s service record than about McCain’s. That being said, I don’t care. Just shut up about your past and talk about the issues, please.

    It’s weird. You need to demonstrate your character, explain your ideology, and lay out your agenda. That’s just three things. It’s amazing how many presidential candidates forget to do one or two of them.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Baritone, note that I havne’t said one word defending McCain’s shortcomings in the area of being an asshole. That’s something where hard evidence is scant and it’s somewhat subjective anyway. But you are offbase on his military record. Sure, he’s not the great war hero of all time, but he’s got a respectable record in that respect and you can’t turn it into a negative on the facts, so you’re barking up the wrong tree.

    And note that you’re going after McCain on personal issues here, not policy – that doesn’t earn you any points with me. How about you defend Obama’s proposed policies and tell us where the money is coming from to pay for them. That would be relevant.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    You have gone apoplectic in attacking Obama’s past and character. Obama’s fair game, but McCain is not? What, is Johnny a sacred cow?

    The very same can be said for McCain’s proposals. He is more out in left field than Obama.

    When the shit hit the fan in the housing industry and wall street, neither campaign was prepared. They are both scrambling around trying to find something to grab onto by way of how to stablize the economy. Proposals from both sides fail to establish where the money is coming from.

    By his own admission, the economy is not Johnny’s strong suit. The Republicans have had eight years of screwing all this up. Obama and the Democrats just might succeed in getting a handle on things.
    Stranger things have happened.

    Regarding campaign promises, as you and I both know, most of those get tossed into the trash can before the chairs are removed from the Capitol steps after the inauguration. I wouldn’t loose any sleep over how Obama will fund his proposals. Most will likely never see the light of day. Ditto for McCain should he win.

    Since yours is not the last word on all things, I chose to believe that McCain has, at the least embellished his POW story. It is in keeping with his history and his character. And,if it’s as you yourself have said, that it bears little on his qualifications for the presidency, someone ought to inform Johnny of that.

    And, if McCain chooses to drag Obama’s shit out into the street as he claims he is prepared to do at this evening’s debate, he should be prepared for the same.

    The word is “haven’t” not havne’t. But, I’m sure you know that. Right?

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    You have gone apoplectic in attacking Obama’s past and character. Obama’s fair game, but McCain is not? What, is Johnny a sacred cow?

    Because Obama is evil and plans to destroy the basic principles of freedom on which our nation is founded. McCain, for all his faults, is not.

    Since yours is not the last word on all things, I chose to believe that McCain has, at the least embellished his POW story.

    Fine, if that’s what it takes to live with selling out our liberty with a vote for Obama.

    And, if McCain chooses to drag Obama’s shit out into the street as he claims he is prepared to do at this evening’s debate, he should be prepared for the same.

    I’m hoping he’ll spend some of that time demanding accountability for the Demcorats in congress who protected Fannie Mae from reform and oversight, while profiting personally from loans and campaign contributions.

    Dave

  • Ren Car

    If John Kerry was not good enough to be president for the right wingers, so does John McCain.

    If they say that Obama is an empty suit, bush jr. is an empty brain. I’d rather have an intelligent empty suit than an empty brain like Sarah Palin.

    I have utmost respect for John McCain but he is no longer the Maverick he once used to be. He went to the dark side of the neocon lunatics.

  • zingzing

    dave: “Obama is evil and plans to destroy the basic principles of freedom on which our nation is founded.”

    even mccain wouldn’t go so far as to say that.

    obama’s an arab!

  • Ren Car

    Accoding to Dave: Because Obama is evil and plans to destroy the basic principles of freedom on which our nation is founded. McCain, for all his faults, is not.

    I thought Bush already destroyed the basci principles of freedom of our nation? There is nothing left to be destroyed. Obama intends to undo the destruction that Bush created

  • Clavos

    I wouldn’t loose any sleep over…

    The word is lose, not loose.

    But, I’m sure you know that, right?

    Grass houses, B-tone.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    howe too drivve clavoss Crazie… lessen 1

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Baronius,

    You comment(#15),

    Just shut up about your past and talk about the issues, please.

    It’s weird. You need to demonstrate your character, explain your ideology, and lay out your agenda. That’s just three things. It’s amazing how many presidential candidates forget to do one or two of them.

    I don’t understand. How are character and ideology separable from a candidate’s past? Some miraculous transformation, perhaps, since nomination?

    A candidate’s agenda is campaign talk, where he discusses “the issues.” Issue positions are often neither believed in when uttered nor implemented if elected; I find agendas hardly more creditable, or worthy of a vote, than an advertisement for a weight loss pill or a cure for baldness. Having said that, many people buy weight loss pills and cures for baldness.

    Let Encourage Senators McCain and Obama to talk about their past — what their ideologies are, how they were formed and how they have changed. Senator Obama may have better character than Senator McCain, or vice versa. A lot has been written about their respective characters, much of it hogwash. Both should demonstrate (rather than pontificate upon) whatever character they may have because that, to me at least, trumps just about everything else.

    Senator McCain’s and Senator Obama’s agendas will change if elected, and so will the issues; their characters and ideologies probably won’t.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    howe too drivve clavoss Crazie… lessen 1

    My wyf wud tel ewe thass not a dreyeve, Dock; i’ts a putte.

    My comment #22 was inspired by B-tone’s #17 to Dave:

    The word is “haven’t” not havne’t. But, I’m sure you know that. Right?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Which was prompted by a similar correction Dave made about a similar error in one of my comments – and on and on and on and on and on…

    Given how we often are whipping out these comments in between doing things like – I don’t know – say, making a living, that most of us make relatively few errors is laudable. I endeavor to be accurate with spelling, word usage, syntax, etc., but some things do occasionally get by me, just as they do most of us here – Clav, excepted, of course.

    I rarely make reference to such flubs, but Dave chose to point one out, and I just responded in kind.

    dkeD vzodr,##ldiie aloevhei. “nmpce=(( lofl” id,cl=ccoalecmo;}}}~~~!

    Barreltone

  • bliffle

    Dave demonstrates that he’s truly lost it:

    “…Obama is evil and plans to destroy the basic principles of freedom on which our nation is founded.”

  • Baronius

    OK, Dan, I’ll try to put it coherentlier.

    At this point, I feel like we’ve got a good view of the candidates’ characters. We’ve looked at their pasts, including the parts they don’t want to talk about.

    Neither of the candidates has been straightforward about their ideologies, both running to their right. Obama’s even been running to the right of McCain on taxes.

    On the issues it’s been mostly platitudes. Broad statements have their place, but come on – if you want this job, tell us what you’re going to do with it. Two years ago, McCain was all about immigration, and Obama wanted an immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq. Now they won’t even take their own positions on their strongest issues. I expect better.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    blif,

    Dave has convinced himself, despite his supposed atheist position that Barack Obama is in truth the anti-christ – far worse than any Manchurian Candidate. I usually make light of this, but Dave is dead serious. He stated on another thread a few days ago that Obama must be stopped “at any cost.” I’d say that Dave is edging toward the lunatic fringe. (He isn’t in the room, is he?)

    B

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Baronius,

    I appreciate the effort, but I don’t quite buy it. You say (Comment #28)

    At this point, I feel like we’ve got a good view of the candidates’ characters. We’ve looked at their pasts, including the parts they don’t want to talk about.

    Do you really think so? Senator McCain’s character has been dissected, for better or worse, but I don’t think that Senator Obama’s has been — at least in the popular press, which matters.

    You continue,

    On the issues it’s been mostly platitudes. Broad statements have their place, but come on – if you want this job, tell us what you’re going to do with it. Two years ago, McCain was all about immigration, and Obama wanted an immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq. Now they won’t even take their own positions on their strongest issues. I expect better.

    So do I. I’m sick and tired of platitudes, of which we have had a gross surfeit. That’s why character and ideology are so important. As to immigration, the economic situation in the U.S. has reduced the numbers of “undocumented workers” because there are fewer jobs. Mexico is suffering from the diminution of remittances. It was a problem, and may well be one later, if and when the U.S. economy improves. But right now, it is far less critical than other issues. As to Iraq, the situation has also changed, apparently for the better. Senator Obama and Senator McCain don’t seem that far apart on what to do.

    Facts change and responses change accordingly. Character and ideology, generally, don’t. If they have changed, it would be fascinating to learn why.

    I shall now avert my eyes from BC and watch the debate, which CNN (fortunately) carries live on the internet.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Lee Richards

    The more people like Dave rant, with spittle flying, about stopping evil freedom-destroyers, the longer it will take conservatives to win anything again.

  • Clavos

    As long as, when the time comes, we stop BHO from “spreading [our] wealth around…”

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    How are Obama’s proposals any different except with regards WHO gets the tax breaks?

    In “trickle down” economics the lion’s share of tax breaks and other advantages afforded the market place go to the rich in the theory that the wealth will “trickle down” to the middle and lower classes. Never mind the obnoxious nature of it – the vision of the masses scrambling around the feet of the fat cats frantically grabbing drips and crumbs spewed from the gaping mouth of the rich. It simply doesn’t work. That the rich are afforded total control of that “trickle” places the rest of us in that despicable posture.

    Rather, if more of the wealth of this nation were redistributed to the middle and lower economic classes, it stands to reason that ultimately the rich would still benefit as more of their products and services would be purchased and used by a larger number of people having additional funds with which to buy.

    I have maintained an income that, for the most part would be considered near the lower end of the middle. I have been self-employed for the better part of 25 years. I do own a home. However, I have never purchased a new car. (In fact, I have never owned a car which was manufactured in the same decade in which I owned it.) We own very few of the “bells and whistles” available in the market today – no second “vacation” home, no sports or vintage cars, no pleasure boats, not even a flat screen TV or high end sound system. We have no investments.

    I’m sure we’re not alone in this. I don’t particularly covet “things,” but, if I had the funds, I would probably endeavor to attain some of those “things” or avail myself of more wide spread travel or even actually attempt to save or invest a bit of it.

    It wouldn’t be a dramatic difference, but if I weren’t obliged to pay $8000 to $12000 in federal taxes each year, we might take a step or two deeper into the market place. I imagine others would as well.

    It seems to me that this scenario could result in a “win” for, if not everyone, certainly significantly more people than is now the case. Somehow, I doubt that the spouse of the average corporate CEO would be reduced to clipping coupons. I’ve little doubt that the rich would in any case manage to remain rich.

    B

  • Clavos

    B-tone:

    You just don’t get the unAmericanness of “spreading the wealth around.” What Obama proposes is forcibly removing wealth in the possession of people, wealth they earned, and giving it to other people who did not earn it. It goes way beyond “who gets the tax break:” he’s proposing to take money from the wealthy and give it to the 40% of Americans who already, because of their circumstances, are not paying any taxes, in the form of a payoff.

    It’s a clever political move, vote wise. He takes money from 5% of the voters and GIVES (not “reduces their taxes” – gives them cash) it to 40% of the voters.

    You do the math – hell of a vote getter, that idea.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    I usually make light of this, but Dave is dead serious. He stated on another thread a few days ago that Obama must be stopped “at any cost.” I’d say that Dave is edging toward the lunatic fringe. (He isn’t in the room, is he?)

    I’ll say this for Obama. He’s far less dangerous than Cynthia McKinney would be if she were elected.

    The more people like Dave rant, with spittle flying, about stopping evil freedom-destroyers, the longer it will take conservatives to win anything again.

    Works for me, Lee. I’m a republican, not a conservative.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Mark my words. There is an October surprise headed our way. As I resign myself to an Obama Presidency, I am praying that voters will be deliberate in their casting ballots for Congress. Regardless of who is running, I hope that every incumbent gets booted out. That message, my friends, will be cataclysmic for Washington.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I thought the October Surprise was the stock market going kershplumf, Silas.

    If that wasn’t it, then whatever it is had better hurry up. There’s not much October left to be surprising in.

  • Clavos

    There’s not much October left to be surprising in.

    Almost half of it, Doc.

    And no, the stock market deflating wasn’t really a surprise; not after the housing market went POP and the subprimes (which is not the same thing as the Supremes-either of them) sank.

  • bliffle

    Clavos said:

    “You just don’t get the unAmericanness of “spreading the wealth around.”

    Really? “Spread the wealth” was my dads favorite saying. Whenever he paid for something. And he was imminently American

  • Clavos

    Really? “Spread the wealth” was my dads favorite saying. Whenever he paid for something. And he was imminently American

    Non sequitur, bliff; but I’m not surprised, coming from you.

  • Baronius

    Silas, I wouldn’t be stunned by a McCain win.

    Obama has been running negative, deceptive ads for months, while McCain’s been saving his (substantially less) money. Obama has done as much damage to McCain as he’s ever going to do. Now it’s McCain’s turn. He’s going wildly negative, and it’ll be a couple of weeks before we’ll see the accumulated damage caused by it. I don’t know if it’ll be enough, but you have to remember that Obama’s negative rating is only going to get bigger.

  • Franco

    #34 — Clavos

    forcibly removing wealth in the possession of people, wealth they earned, and giving it to other people who did not earn it.

    Today in the US the law exist to protect persons and their property. Those are “just laws”. How can the same government who enforces those laws protecting life liberty and property then go and break them by doing what a citizen would go to jail it they did it. So if law exist to protect people from doing this to each other, how is it that the government can break the same law? That make is an unjust law.It is a crime to do it. It is breaking the very law that protects us all.

  • moon

    Nalle took the rag off the bush this time with his statement that he’s a REPUBLICAN.

    Before, he beat the pan and spewed the line that he was a LIBERTARIAN–without reflecting for one instant, even when it was called to his attention, that AUTHORITARIAN behavior, such as that which he has exhibited on this forum by suppressing any dissenting opinion and insulting any dissenting poster, is diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.

    Now he wants to claim that Republican is an ideological label?!?!

    Do tell.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Really? “Spread the wealth” was my dads favorite saying. Whenever he paid for something. And he was imminently American

    I bet that if you asked your dad he would have said that he believed it was the responsibility of individuals to ‘spread the wealth’ not the responsibility of government to spread our wealth for us.

    Under those terms I believe in spreading the wealth too. I’m a big fan of Marcus Aurelius who had at the heart of his philosophy the idea that wealth and success bring with them the obligation to help others. That’s ultimately a very American set of values. Taking money from people involuntarily to redistribute to others is not such a positive value. It’s theft by force of government.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Moon seems not to understand the difference between republicanism and the Republican Party. They aren’t the same thing. And it’s certainly possible to be both a (small r) republican and a (small l) libertarian, as I am.

    As for suppressing dissent, as she well knows I’ve never tried to silence anyone for their opinions, and as for being critical of those I disagree with, I honor their right to disagree with me and expect them to extend the same courtesy.

    Dave

  • moon

    She knows full well that you have used your editoriship to silence HER for her opinions.

    And she is fully aware of the difference between republicanism (which does not exist, nor has ever esisted in the US–and which suffered violent defeat in Rome and in Spain) and the republican party.

    It is not possible to be something that does not exist–a republican (small r).

    And being a libertarian (small l) is competely incompatible with the flagrantly authoritarian behavior (small a) that you have always exhibited on this forum–especially in regard to this poster.

    Abuse of power is not a principle of libertarian thought.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Dave Nalle: “I’ve never tried to silence anyone for their opinions” Quoted for 100% total bs factor.

    Moon, you are still persona non grata here I’m afraid.

    Contradictions, don’t you just love ‘em?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Christopher,

    Interesting comment. Aside from enforcing, quite properly, the proscription against personal attacks, what opinions has Dave “tried to silence?” I haven’t seen it, but then you may. If so, perhaps a bit of editorial transparency would be helpful.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Christopher. Do try to read more closely. Notice the word ‘opinions’? Be honest now. Did I ever complain about Moon’s or anyone else’s opinions, or have my concerns primarily been about disruptive and insulting behavior?

    Dave

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, I’m sure such a practised mangler of the English language as you ought to be perfectly well aware that one person’s disruptive behaviour is another person’s freedom.

    You have banged on long and hard about freedom of speech but, in my opinion, you completely betrayed that commitment by requesting that moonraven be banned.

    Sure, you said it was because she was disruptive, but she is/was no worse than other people we have on here from both sides of the political spectrum.

    That apart, she was particularly good at pointing out the many, er, weaknesses and contradictions in your political perspective and was regularly out-debating you. I disagree with her political perspective almost as much as I do with yours by the way.

    You are also the one that very aggressively insulted her when she first showed up and thus made her so angry in the first place. I blame myself to a certain extent for that reaction as I was listening to your lip service arguments in favour of free speech and did not edit out your insulting remarks. I learned a lesson there but you lost your credibility.

  • http://www.thepolitikos.com Heloise

    Forget the Bradley effect and who gives a rat’s ass about racism: Why? Because Obama is raising money like there’s no tomorrow. He has over 3.1 million contributors, that’s well beyond the 1 million mark that was the old record and now got an email you gotta hear:

    Breaking: Obama raises 150 MILLION in September! Watch the video

    Obama routs the fundraising records for candidates–Thank God, McCain and yes, that you Sarah Palin.

    And if he looses we can leave this country and start our own somewhere else–just kidding.

  • troll

    lift the ban on moonraven’s comments

    eof

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    lift the ban on moonraven’s comments

    Agreed….

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ #36-38:

    So is this the October Surprise?

    Just a theory…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Breaking: Obama raises 150 MILLION in September! Watch the video

    Like I’ve said elsewhere, you will get the best president Arab money can buy. You’re going from one Arab ass-kisser to another in short order. Neither party nor race matter here. The loyalty is the same.

    Enjoy the changes when they come, Heloise – tell us which color hijab you will want to wear….

  • http://www.thepolitikos.com Heloise

    Ruvy, where have you been? I’ve been a Muslim for decades. I write about Islamic esotericism which was the foundation for “Stoicism” the religion of Rome which informed Christianity.

    You need to read some books instead of talking to Heloise…:)

    Ruvy, I have about 5 hijabs in the attic and will wear them when the time comes. Not kidding.

    I got them in India and a Midwestern white woman gave me two of them.

    You don’t have a CLUE about what goes on in America!

    Heloise

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Heloise,

    I write about Islamic esotericism which was the foundation for “Stoicism” the religion of Rome which informed Christianity.

    Say what?

    Stoicism, at least the stoicism I’m familiar with, was a Greek philosophy – which may have informed Christianity – but predated Islam (as revealed tp Mohammed) by about 1,000 years.

    Now I realize that Moslems all claim that Adam was Moslem and that everybody is a Moslem until somebody corrupts his mind in one way or another. But the basic definition of a Moslem, as I understand it, is one who seeks peace through submission to Allah, and who believes that Mohammed was His (final) prophet. Such an individual is “perfected” (the Hebrew mushlám the cognate of muslím means “perfect”). This perfection is not what Moslems talk about when pushing their faith, but it is what they mean.

    Of course, that leavea an itty bitty problem. Did Abraham, (according to Moslem claims, originally a Moslem) believe in Mohammed? I tossed that question at a Sufi cleric once. It was a poser for him.

    Arab-bashing, Heloise? Moslem-bashing? Maybe I should be more specific here. The Arabs who are buying you Obama are not Moslems at all. They are Wahhabi. A Wahhabi is not a Moslem, he is a heretic pretending to be a Moslem because he believes that Allah has form. NO Moslem believes that Allah has form. Don’t believe me, Heloise. Go to the source and check it out yourself.

    The Wahhabi have been kicked out of your faith for the last two hundred years or more repeatedly – until some Yanks and Brits gave the filthy bastards enough gold to buy horses and rifles and throw the el-Hashemi clan out of Makka and Medina in Hijaz 80 years back. The Yank that gave the Wahhabi scum the money was George Bush’ grampa, the late Senator Prescott Bush. And his son and grandson are Saudi head-waiters and servants. And Obama will be no better.

    Go mess with the Christians or the atheists on this site, Heloise. I’m a Jew-boy who knows his shit.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Heloise,

    The point about the hijab, by the way, is that right now you can choose to wear one in public – or not. With wünderkinder like Obama in power, that may not be true in your country anymore – especially for Moslems.

    So, to revise the question, which of the five hijabs you have in your closet will you be wearing, “come the revolution”?

  • moon

    Frankly, it’s about time that the comments editor of this site finally admitted that Dave Nalle insulted me from the beginning–and not because I was disruptive or any such thing, but because I nailed his posturing and slander to the wall.

    That was more than 2 years ago, and since then there was a pretense maintained here by the powers-that-be that I was a troll and that Dave Nalle’s behavior was pure as the driven snow–including banning me several times from this site rather than doing the ethical thing and removing Nalle from his honorary editorship from which he regularly abused his power by blocking posts and insulting posters.

    I am not the only poster insulted by Nalle. Insulting behavior is habitual on his part. Why as recent as yesterday he called another poster who disagreed with him insane.

    I consider remarks of that ilk, as well as racist sneers about a poster’s ethnicity, comments that indicate gender hatred and persistently infantile comments in regard to Marx and Lenin when to the best of my reading knowledge no one on this site has ever espoused Marist Leninism in regard to ANYTHING, to be beyond unprofessional and if that makes me persona non grata here then I am in excellent company.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Perhaps the problem is that your ability to stick to the truth, Moon. You make stuff up to serve your interests. That makes it hard for people to take you seriously. You fabricate ridiculous claims about other people which are easily disproven, constantly resort to personal attacks and baseless accusations of racism directed not only at me, which I’ve been willing to put up with, but also at newer and less hardened participants.

    When you take your discussion to the level of personal attacks and insults it derails otherwise meaningful and potentially pleasant and informative exchanges. If you could behave yourself in this area I’d have no problem with your ocntinues participation, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of being civil and participating in discussions on the terms described in the comments policy.

    I don’t have the power to ban you and have never blocked one of your posts or comments. But yes, you are the one person whose behavior I believe has been disruptive enough to suggest that something be done about it. And even then you weren’t banned, just nicely asked to take a break.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Ruvy, unless I misremember very badly, Stoicism is a Roman philosophy, not Greek.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Frankly, it’s about time that the comments editor of this site finally admitted that Dave Nalle insulted me from the beginning–and not because I was disruptive or any such thing, but because I nailed his posturing and slander to the wall…..

    Finally, we see the true lady behind the persona “moonraven”. And, while I disagree fundamentally with many things she says and believes, she has (almost) always acted as a lady to me. And I’ve (almost) always attempted to be a gentleman to her. And now, we are reading “her” point of view – blunt, straight and honest – as opposed to the eye-pecking raids of a raven or hawk that was the persona she adopted for the site as “moonraven”.

    My suggestion is this:

    1. That our friend Marthe Raymond (moon) continue writing in this vein. Whether I disagree with her or not, civillity is always easier to deal with than incivillity.

    2. That our friend Dave Nalle at least apologize to Ms. Raymond. It’s owed her. And that our friend Dave Nalle think about how he deals with other posters here and consider his words. Spiritual growth does not require subscribing to a set of religious beliefs.

    It will not satisfy anybody. But we will gain (and hopefully keep) another intelligent commenter.

    Marthe, while you may not be aware of this, there is one commenter who does generally espouse Marxist-Leninism on this site: Les Slater. And while I’m no Marxist of any variety, I’m a syndicalist socialist – and always have been.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Dave,

    Ruvy, unless I misremember very badly, Stoicism is a Roman philosophy, not Greek.

    Much Greek philosophy was taken over whole cloth by the Romans, who were not all that original. Much Roman culture was indeed Greek, and indeed this is still true in Italy today. It is entirely possible that many Stoic philosophers were Romans. I pulled my definition from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Go to the link in comment #57 and argue from there if I’m wrong.

    But the point is this: Islamic esotericism which was the foundation for “Stoicism” does not make any sense at all. The Romans and Greeks both came along long before Mohammed or Islam did.

    Now, the Sufis also predate Mohammed by some centuries, and it may be Sufi esotericism that Heloise is referring to in her comment #56.

  • moon

    It is the opinion of this poster that Nalle’s post (number 60 of this thread) is a massive projection.

    Nalle, in fact, is the most flagrant example on this site of someone who just makes stuff up–and who when called on his inventions is so disdainful of the other posters on this forum that he has routinely posted links to supposed sources for his claims–which disagree completely with his claims!

    I am not the only person on this site who has called Nalle on his proclivity to make things up.

    I have never fabricated ridiculous claims against anyone except in clear-cut cases of humor!

    I resorted to personal attacks to DEFEND myself ONLY after having been accused of alcoholism and sleeping with a Mexican gardener as supposed negations of my credibility as a poster. (Not exactly refuting my arguments, guys.)

    And the Mexican gardener attack was clearly racist. And there has been othing baseless about any of my claims of racism here–including those racist comments against my person for being Native American.

    Dave is playing to the heartstrings when he tells us how he is man enough to put up with personal attacks and insults, but that other posters are too tender and feeble and fragile to do so and that therefore he demanded that I be banned so that those tender folks would not be hurt.

    That takes a lot of nerve, Nalle, or absolutely no capacity for introspection. You choose.

    I was banned, Nalle–not asked to take a break–so save your “butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth” disclaimers for someone simple enough to believe them.

  • moon

    Ruvy,

    Thanks for your support, but I will not hold my breath waiting for an apology from Nalle for his denigrating and disrespectful behavior towards me.

    If he apologized to me it would mean that he would have to change his entire MO on this site–from being a self-proclaimed expert who has the way the truth and the light and that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him should be puniched with hellfire.

    It’s essentially a fundamentalist stance, Ruvy–and with your experience and mine of fundamentalists of several different stripes–their entire selfconcept is created from their belief system–which really has nothing to do with religion or politics but from the FUNDAMENTAL need to FEEL that they are right and that if they are not right–even in something completely inconsequential–they are NOTHING.

    Fundamentalism is produced and maintained by very damaged people, whose life experience has taught them that they live in a basically hostile world that will destroy them in an instant if they recognize that other people have rights.

    Consensus is intolerable to them–they must prevail.

    And they will do anything to prevail–including taking the lives of folks whom they view as threatening in some way.

    I see many folks in your “neck of the woods”–on BOTH sides of the conflict–as fundamentalists. I can understand how they got to that point, but I cannot identify or agree with them as the posture is, quite literally, a dead end.

    I also see Dave Nalle that way. Perhaps he is in the wrong part of the world to work out his life path.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Moon, you do have valid points about your treatment, but you lose credibilty chastising Dave with your poor grasp of the facts. As an editor I saw other posters and writers in addition to Dave complain about your behavior, which let’s be honest didn’t always follow Robert’s Rules of Order, and one was someone that I have yet to see agree with Dave on any issue. You in fact were asked to take a self-imposed break when you were unable to reel in your antics. You were banned after that.

  • http://www.thepolitikos.com Heloise

    Okay “jew boy” yes, Mohammed was around 1200 AD and I knew that when I said what I said. But it does not change anything. What I should have said was that mysticism/esotericism predates it.

    Regardless was just trying to get your Jew Radar up and I did. Ooops.

    Heloise

  • Pablo

    The fact that Nalle is the political editor of this rag, only does disservice to it. He insults others on here on a regular basis. The fact is that if he had to limit himself to rational civilized debate, he would come out on the losing side 90% of the time.

    Instead what he does is attack, impune, and ridicule, which is why I dislike him so much, and why I continue to refer to him and his boyfriend as bubbas.

    However I do like the fact that he shows his true colors on a regular basis, that being ignorance.

  • http://www.thepolitikos.com Heloise

    Exactly. Sufism. I did not write it because I knew YOU knew. We use the writings of the Adi Granth (Sikhs) and Sufi writers.

    Then there are the Egyptians (from whom the Greeks stole everything) whose belief in one God and its three persons is the template from which Judaism and Christianity (St. Paul)spring.

    No one gives the Egyptians credit, and certainly not the Jews.

    “As for Stoicism: Political Dictionary: Stoicism

    With an initial capital, the word refers to the philosophy of Zeno (c.300 bc) and his followers. Stoics believed that the world was determined by necessity; that there is no point in humans’ fighting necessity; and that humans should therefore confront it calmly. This last gives the link with the ordinary meaning of the word.”
    from answers.com

    Marcus Aurelius and Cicero were both Romans who put Stocism on the religious map. Greeks (one writer traces everything from the Greeks). Easily Greeks may have started Stocism but it was the religion of ROME.

    PS: as for moon’s comment bashing BC we are not paid pundits, or on TV, nor from MSM, and many sites use large quotes from other sites infused with a little comment. We are a magazine not a newspaper-lite.

    I read blogs all over the map and if the writing over there is better it’s because these people write for a living…hello. BC is impacting the lingo around the globe and the microcosm of American MSM.

    I hear European news anchors saying “touting and trump” Huh? They shun “American English” for RP and English as spoken in England. If you think there is no difference then ask the TOEFL folks.

    Heloise

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Heloise,

    whose belief in one God and its three persons is the template from which Judaism and Christianity (St. Paul)spring. No one gives the Egyptians credit, and certainly not the Jews.

    A century or so before Moshe showed up to get the pharaoh to let our people go, one Egyptian pharaoh believed in a sun god (Amen) as the sole god.

    But Avraham was the son of a Sumerian high priest (TeraH – teraHu on a tablet found decades ago) who fled from Ur to Paran after the king he served died. Abraham continued from Paran to Canaan on G-d’s command – before he ever arrived in Egypt. He showed up in Egypt to buy food before this pharaoh who believed in Amen ruled – by a few centuries.

    There is much to give credit to the Egyptians over. Their drawings, when carefully examined, give a very clear explanation as to what the Egyptian kings were talking about when they made detailed plans to seek eternal life. All sorts of interesting stuff turns up. And when carefully examined, it is relatively clear that there was a very advanced civilization operating in Egypt (and the rest of the Middle East) alongside the primitive human one that is described in the Torah and in works like Gilgamesh. In addition, it is evident that the calendar describing Israelite holidays in the Torah – the calendar of Jubilees – was a solar calendar based on the Egyptian model rather than the present luni-solar calendar of the rabbis.

    But the Israelites did not get their template for belief from the Egyptians. Sorry, Heloise. That came from Avraham, the fellow who crossed over from Nibiru – the Ivrí.

  • Cindy D

    Not that this is a democracy or anything, but my two cents:

    lift the ban on moonraven’s comments

    Hey Dr.D, here’s an article for you. Has a few more details, in case you are interested.

  • moon

    Heloise:

    This poster is one of those “TOEFL folks”–that is to say a specialist in language acquisition who designs courses to prepare for the TOEFL as well as TOEFL exams.

    And I am afraid that I do not see your point.

    However, as for the lack of writing skills on BC–BTW I do not consider my post a bashing of BC, but a simple statement that the topics seldom interest me, as I do not live in Gringolandia–that you equate with the fact that BC writers are not paid, this point was debated here a long time ago when this poster refused to consider writing for BC because this poster is a longtime professional writer who, unlike Linda Evangelista, who said she didn’t get out of bed for less than 10 grand, believes that when writers are paid that the ones not worth paying are weeded out much more effectively.

    There are plenty of folks who ARE paid and who aren’t worth a plug nickel–Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald would be first on my list of those–not that his writing skills per se are substandard, but his articles are blinders-on propaganda [Personal attack deleted]–and which are even worse in the sense that he writes non-articles that always say something MAY, MIGHT or COULD happen and wrings his hands–and the readers’ patience–about that.

    The MH continues to pay him–and that’s one of the bigger mysteries in journalism.

  • Clavos

    You in fact were asked to take a self-imposed break when you were unable to reel in your antics. You were banned after that.

    The direct, proximate reason for which Marthe was banned was an extremely insulting comment about my wife, who has yet to post so much as one comment on the site, much less one insulting to Marthe.

    Marthe has yet to apologize for her comment.

  • moon

    clavos,

    Fact: If you go back to September 2006 and read Chavez One-Man Axis of Crazy, or whatever it was called, you will note that you began the conflict by insulting ME.

    Fact: I did not insult your wife–I insulted your machismo.

    Assumption: You can dish it out–apparently–but you can’t take it.

  • Clavos

    Fact: Virtually everyone on the site took your comment as derogatory to my wife, as well as to me.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Right, now that you folks are re-acquainted, let’s leave all the past in the past and talk issues.

    Marthe, I don’t want to see any more comments directed at other commenters. Stick to the subject or this spontaneous leeway will be withdrawn for the last time.

  • John

    #2 McCain claims that he was tortured and pretty much left to die until his captors discovered that he was the son of an American admiral. What he doesn’t relate is that it was McCain himself who informed the Vietnamese of his family ties.

    Dave Nalle’s reply:

    “Actually, McCain is on record admitting this in the interview he gave to US News and World Report when he returned from Vietnam”

    I don’t recall him saying it recently.

    That would deflate his “hero claim” somewhat, wouldn’t it?

    The man does deserve credit for being a POW.

    It ends there.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    It’s very difficult to track down MR’s comments because she has posted under scores of different names and from as many different IPs. She’s even posted with fake foreign accents and intentionally distorted grammar to pass herself off as an arab.

    But, the earliest comment I can find is from September of 2006, on this article, comment #21, which was primarily just an insult directed at me as author, saying in part:

    “This commentary must have been written by someone who doesn’t read other peoples’ commentaries–or keep up with any news, only propaganda….

    Try getting out more–leave the computer keys to someone who does.”

    The discussion remained civil until she started telling people that they couldn’t have an opinion unless they could read Spanish and began denying the existence of evidentiary links which people had provided a comment or two earlier.

    Yes, eventually I called her arrogant and closed minded, but if you can read that thread and not find it justified at that point I have no use for you.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    I don’t recall him saying it recently.

    That would deflate his “hero claim” somewhat, wouldn’t it?

    The man does deserve credit for being a POW.

    Agreed. And being a POW doesn’t really count towards being president in any meaningful way. For that matter, being a hero doesn’t qualify you to be a president either.

    But McCain did run a military base, serve as naval liaison to Congress and serve many years in elective office, all of which is quite a sufficient resume for the job he’s running for. Arguably even better than Biden’s experience which is much less diverse and has zero executive experience in it.

    Dave

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Having just revisited that thread, I saw the first insults were made to Marthe by the now banned JOM and yourself, Dave.

    Anyway, we are done raking over the past so let’s get back to the debate.

    On the subject of presidential readiness, I seem to recall one president saying that you are never qualified for the job and that the learning curve is unbelievably steep. One more reason to vote for a smart guy.

    Is it fact or fiction that the presidents have personal journals of some kind which are often passed on to successive presidents?

  • John

    “But McCain did run a military base, serve as naval liaison to Congress and serve many years in elective office, all of which is quite a sufficient resume for the job he’s running for. Arguably even better than Biden’s experience which is much less diverse and has zero executive experience in it.”

    Dave

    With all that experience, you’d think that McCain would have told GWB to not invade Iraq,

    Think of it. McCain could have saved thousands of American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives, and avoided a few million Iraqis either leaving their homes and country or be killed — plus his “experience” could have saved the country hundreds of billions of dollars, which had to be borrowed from China.

    If that McCain “experience” has any value, what is it?

    If McCain’s experience is your reason to vote for him, your reasoning is grossly deficient.

    Not to mention Sarah, who “can see Russia from her house.”

    The woman is a nut. And so is her sponsor for selecting her.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com DaveNalle

    Lots of people with even more experience than McCain encouraged Bush to invade Iraq. Experience and good judgment or prescience don’t necessarily go together.

    And I never suggested that his experience alone was reason to vote for McCain. I was just pointing out that he does HAVE that experience, for whatever it may be worth.

    My argument for voting for McCain would almost entirely consist of arguments against voting for Obama.

    Dave

  • John

    “I was just pointing out that he does HAVE that experience, for whatever it may be worth.”

    Whatever it may be worth?

    How about a plugged nickel.

  • John

    My argument for voting against McCain would begin with arguments against voting for Palin.

    McCain has cancer and will be 76 at the end of a 4-year term. The odds are there that he may not make it,

    So Dave, what is your argument for voting for Palin?

  • Clavos

    So Dave, what is your argument for voting for Palin?

    You can’t vote for Palin.

    Or Biden.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Keep in mind that McCain’s mother is 97 and not dead yet. Plus, McCain has hinted pretty strongly about a single term, which in some ways makes him more appealing.

    As for Palin, she’s no dumber and no less experienced than others who’ve served in the office. She’s articulate and takes instruction well, and seems to have some basically sound ideas on individual liberty. Put her with some good advisers and she’ll do fine. If Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman were able to run the country halfway competently I’m sure Palin could do as well.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Well she’s not dumber than Dan Quayle. I’ll give her that much. But, she’s nasty and despicable.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, what’s your basis for declaring Palin to be ‘nasty and despicable’. Have you seen her torturing puppies or something? Because nothing in her record or in all the exhaustive investigation of the huge numbers of reporters sent to dig up dirt matches that description.

    By all accounts she’s a pretty nice, perhaps somewhat contentious, but hardly ‘despicable’ person.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Keep in mind that McCain’s mother is 97 and not dead yet”

    Keep in mind his father lived to 70.

  • Cannonshop

    of course the man’s dead-he was MARRIED, ’twas probably a RELEASE. I myself am looking forward to my sudden demise just as soon as I can get enough put away that my wife won’t have to find some other poor son-of-a-bitch to torment.

  • Clavos

    “Keep in mind that McCain’s mother is 97 and not dead yet”

    Keep in mind his father lived to 70.

    Neither of which means shit.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    That was my point.

  • Clavos

    No kidding! Really?

  • bliffle

    “John McCain’s Image: True or Tainted?”

    Do you mean his image as a cranky old man shooing kids off his lawn?

  • bliffle

    Dave Nalle hopes no one will challenge this, but…

    “Lots of people with even more experience than McCain encouraged Bush to invade Iraq. Experience and good judgment or prescience don’t necessarily go together.”

    Like, who?

    Wolfowitz?

  • moon

    What I continue to find astounding–and I do not think I have to satisfy the “editor” of this forum by writing this comment in Arabic OR Spanish–is that from a population base of 300,000,000 people, the best the One Party System could do is field two presidential candidates who are 1. plastic capuccino (I assume Obama receives big bucks from Nestle?) and 2. an over-the-hill extra from the 70s film, The Deer Hunter.

    And the candidates for veeps are even worse: 1. A complete nonentity whose name I have trouble remembering and 2. A toothy tootsy whose claims to fame are shooting animals from helicopters while chewing gum and screaming You betcha and picking up dollar bills without using her hands.

    And some folks have the jejune temerity to criticize this poster for not living in the US.

    God (if he exists) forbid!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Re comment #94

    How about Secretary Powell? In August of 2004, during the Presidential campaign,

    After Kerry departed and Powell’s turn came, the secretary of state insisted that Bush administration’s foreign policy is more multilateral than its critics at home and abroad contend — and more effective. He said that if the United States had not deposed Hussein, the Iraqi leader would have developed unconventional weapons.

    “We would have faced those weapons at another time, at another place,” Powell said.

    Before the invasion, Powell expressed doubts in administrative channels about the wisdom of the war and the president’s understanding of its implications, but he said yesterday that he was “solidly behind what the president found he had to do last spring when he undertook Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

    “And I’m pleased that that dictator is gone,” added Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. “He’s been a thorn in my side for the last 12 years, too, I can assure you.”

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy D

    RE #88

    Dave,

    Sarah Palin epitomizes the dangers inherent in our failure to teach critical thinking skills. She is anti-intelligence. She is the poster child for the American Utopian myth. She ignores or resents the “other” in her community. She is a usurper of rights (unless you happen to be white). She has mishandled her position of trust through nepotism, through failure to connect, through working to destroy rights, and abuse of power.

    The glint in her eye while she froths vitriol, demonstrates her enjoyment of being a hate-monger. She is so skilled at slander and so eager to engage in it, you can almost hear her heavy breathing. I think of her as the quintessential “mediocre Joe.”

  • moon

    Cindy, You give Palin WAAAAAAAAY too much credit.

    She is what I described in 96–nothing more.

  • Cindy D

    LOL Moon, I’ll buy that, but can I keep the “quintessential mediocre Joe” bit. I rather liked it. :-)

  • moon

    I didn’t like the phrase, and let me explain WHY:

    1. Quintessential is a word absent from her vocabulary. (No point in insulting someone if they don’t understand you.)

    2. Calling her Mediocre is extravagantly overestimating her skills and personality.

    3. And I THINK, based on her primary skill–picking up dollar bills without using her hands–that she is female–or at least NOW she is (there was that rumor started by someone that she had a sex change operation in Thailand about 18 months ago)….

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave Nalle hopes no one will challenge this, but…

    Why on earth would I hope that? The statement is so obviously true that challenging it does seem uniquely pointless, though.

    As someone already pointed out, Colin Powell supported the invasion. So did Donald Rumsfeld, who you have to admit had experience in national defense. So did most of the Republicans and Democrats in congress, including a number of veterans and members of relevant congressional committees. You either forget or are trying to be a revisionist about how wide spread support for the invasion of Iraq actually was.

    Dave

  • moon

    Let’s cut to the chase here: ALL of the neocons supported the invasion of Irak.

    They thought it was going to be a piece of cake.

    The fact that they were wrong just shows you how easily led gringos are. The word lemming comes to mind.

  • John

    Dave says:

    “Colin Powell supported the invasion. So did Donald Rumsfeld, who you have to admit had experience in national defense.”

    Iraq had nothing to do with national defense, so whatever experience Rumsfeld had, other that being a Washington insider for most of his life (when he wasn’t promoting aspartame to the FDA), was of little consequence. And even if it was relaated, Rumsfeld is hardly someone the country can trust.

    “So did most of the Republicans and Democrats in congress“

    Bush creaated FEAR in the populace. And we know what FEAR does to both Republicans and Democrats in congress just before election time.

    So did a “number of veterans and members of relevant congressional committees.”

    Of course, you can fool some of the people some of the time…

    “You either forget or are trying to be a revisionist about how wide spread support for the invasion of Iraq actually was.’

    Any support was built on a series of lies.

    It’s amazing how much Condi Rice’s depiction of Iraq’s imminent nuclear attack against the US was — unless the US acted immediately, and how the MSM promoted it. This affected even those who normally are sane. However, most other countries didn’t drink from that polluted bottle.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, could you back up comment #98? Specifically, that Palin is a racist?

  • Cindy D

    Baronius,

    I’ll elaborate. I think this is the comment you mean.

    “She is a usurper of rights (unless you happen to be white).”

    Alaska Native Americans are disregarded and their federal rights are attacked in court by Palin. She prefers to expand commercial fishing. She owns a commercial fishing license which brought her over $46k in income last year. Her total income was at least $230k.

    1. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Subsistence Fishing
    2. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Subsistence Hunting
    3. Palin has attacked Alaska Tribal Sovereignty
    4. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Languages

    She also spurns Alaska’s black community.

  • Cindy D

    Baronius,

    I can back up any of it. let me know what you need.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Bush creaated FEAR in the populace. And we know what FEAR does to both Republicans and Democrats in congress just before election time.

    Nice repetition of talking points. But in fact, Osama and the 9/11 attack created fear in the populace. If anything Bush worked to create a false sense of security.

    Of course, you can fool some of the people some of the time…

    And some people are just fools.

    Any support was built on a series of lies.

    Actually, it was a combination of lies, truth and spin. Mostly truth and spin when you get down to it. Very few actual lies.

    It’s amazing how much Condi Rice’s depiction of Iraq’s imminent nuclear attack against the US was — unless the US acted immediately,

    You might want to go back and read those statements again. They were full of qualifications and didn’t say anything about an imminent nuclear attack, though they did overstate the likelihood of Iraq developing full nuclear capability if it got weapons grade fissionables. Always in there was the caveat that they did not have and could not produce weapons grade plutonium. No plutonium. No bomb.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    Powell, Rumsfeld, etc., only supported the invasion after the fact. Out of loyalty, one supposes.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, you know what? I was trying to write a reply to your comment, and I just lost heart. If you think that an administration taking a legal position on the subject of tribal rights, and lack of participation in Alaska’s biggest African-American holiday, is proof of racism, then I give up. If words have no meaning, why should I type?

  • Cindy D

    Baronius,

    Whoa…I didn’t say she was a racist. I almost made a second post to clarify that. But, I thought that repeating what I actually did say was enough. I said:

    “She ignores or resents the “other” in her community. She is a usurper of rights (unless you happen to be white).”

    In other words, She is fighting to take away rights of the Alaskan natives indigenous to their land (some of the few peoples who were not moved from their original land), while seeking to expand commercial fishing rights (i.e. what white people do, what she does).

    She ignores the black community and fails to connect with them. They contact her about concerns and she disregards them not even calling back. She disregards their most important event. One that is traditionally recognized by the Alaskan Governor.

  • Cindy D

    It is also traditional for the Alaska Governor to meet with the Leaders in the Black community.

  • Cindy D

    I found this parody of McCain’s responses pretty funny:

    It was written by a commenter regarding an entry an the L.A. Times blog called Countdown to Crawford.

    Background: As Countdown to Crawford noted in an earlier post, London’s Telegraph captured this shift with its headline: “We’re All Socialists Now, Comrade.”

    On Sunday, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McCain about whether he’s as much a socialist as the rest of us.

    Palin & McCain: Obama wants to redistribute wealth, so he’s a Socialist!!
    Wallace: But didn’t you vote for the bailout? In essence, a resolution to redistribute tax payers’ money to financial institutions and for government to take ownerships of some banks? Isn’t that Socialism?
    McCain: Yeah, but I HAD to. There was a crisis. We need government to help those who can’t help themselves!
    Joe Taxpayer: By redistributing my tax dollars to give to banks who are under NO obligation to start lending again? Didn’t you say they are the greedy ones who started all this?
    McCain: Um, yeah. But Obama wants to change tax laws for the wealthy and redistribute their money for poor people!
    Joe Taxpayer: Isn’t Obama trying to change the tax laws that allowed corporations to get rich while working families lost their homes?
    McCain: I want the government to buy people’s homes! That will solve it!
    Joe Taxpayer: Government ownership of citizens’ homes. Is that considered Socialism?
    McCain: Um…. did I say Socialist? I meant… um… Obama is WRONG! And I don’t have to explain why! You people with your questions….!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Bliffle @ #109: Powell, Rumsfeld, etc., only supported the invasion after the fact.

    As Secretaries of State and Defense respectively, I suspect that Powell and Rumsfeld were the last to learn of the invasion…

  • Cindy D

    Ruvy,

    I’m a syndicalist socialist – and always have been.

    Anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian socialist, etc. Like the when the kibbutzim were started.

    I hope we can chat about that sometime. :-)

  • moon

    Maybe Cindy doesn’t want to say that Palin is a racist, but I have no qualms whatsoever about saying that she is.

    Never met a gringo that WASN’T.

  • Jack McEncroe

    I served with John McCain and I know him to be a Patriot, an honorable man, courageous under fire, kind and considerate to women, a good father, and a great friend. I base this on a 43 year friendship. I have no idea where you all get your information but Tim Dickinson is misinformed and his claims are baseless.
    Thank you,
    Jack McEncroe
    Former Marine Fighter Pilot
    Vietnam 67 – 68