NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, I read "Faith of my Fathers", by John McCain.

Being a Liberal independant, means I have a lot of hatred of Bush, and his financially driven cohorts. Unfortunatly, this hatred can extend to other Republicans, even though they are more moderate, becuase they are often called to tow the party line.

Ocassionally, Republican comes along who is worthy of any amount of respect I can muster. John McCain is one such man.
For those of you who may not know, John McCain spent several years in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton", in North Vietnam.

Im not overly patriotic, nor pro-military, but what I read in that book, about what he and so many brave men faced, nearly brought me to tears.
I could go on at length about the dangers of over-zealous patriotism, and about how war is stupid, especially when used as an ad-campaign against communism, so when I say that the action of these men, moved me in such a way, you should get an idea of how serious I am.

One of the most profound displays, of resistance, and patriotism was done by a poor Navy Bombadier navigator named Mike Christian.

Mcain writes :

"Mike was a Navy Bombadier-Navigator in 1967, six months before I arrived.
His family was poor. He had not worn shoes before he was thirteen years old. Character was thier wealth. They were good, honest people."


Christian had sewn an american flag, on the inside of his jacket, with a bamboo needle, and some thread he had scavenged.
When the guards found it, they took him out, and beat him within an inch of his life.
They beat him for several hours, savagely.

When the guards returned Mike to the communal cell, in the dim light, with his eyes swollen nearly shut, unable to walk, and nearly senseless, Christian crawled over to his spot...and immediately began sewing another flag.

So, the lesson here, is:

Even though a man may be on the opposite side of politics, respect is earned, and John McCain, has earned mine.

Christian had sewn an american flag, on the inside of his jacket, with a bamboo needle, and some thread he had scavenged.
When the guards found it, they took him out, and beat him within an inch of his life.
They beat him for several hours, savagely.

When the guards returned Mike to the communal cell, in the dim light, with his eyes swollen nearly shut, unable to walk, and nearly senseless, Christian crawled over to his spot...and immediately began sewing another flag.



I heard McCain tell that story at a campaign stop in Saginaw, Michigan in 2000.

That one even got me a little misty.

I respected McCain at one time, and might have even voted for him in 2000 had he been the Republican nominee. I would have liked being faced with that choice.

But his actions over the last two to three years--and I've posted this before in many other threads, so forgive me if it sounds familiar--have convinced me that something has changed in him. He wants to be President so badly that he's willing to sell himself out to make it happen. After what Bush did to him in South Carolina in 2000, no one would blame McCain for refusing to ever speak to the man again. Hell, I wouldn't blame him if he bitch-slapped Rove--you don't go after a man's family where I come from. McCain did everything but fellate Bush publicly in 2004.

But what's more disturbing is the way he's been sucking up to the christian right over the last year. We're living in an age where religion has far too much sway in our governmental decisions and we need to push back. McCain wants to be elected so much that he's willing to get into bed with those people, and I can't respect a person who does that.

I heard McCain tell that story at a campaign stop in Saginaw, Michigan in 2000.


I live ten minutes from Saginaw.

or "Saginasty", as locals call it.

I respected McCain at one time, and might have even voted for him in 2000 had he been the Republican nominee. I would have liked being faced with that choice.

But his actions over the last two to three years--and I've posted this before in many other threads, so forgive me if it sounds familiar--have convinced me that something has changed in him. He wants to be President so badly that he's willing to sell himself out to make it happen. After what Bush did to him in South Carolina in 2000, no one would blame McCain for refusing to ever speak to the man again. Hell, I wouldn't blame him if he bitch-slapped Rove--you don't go after a man's family where I come from. McCain did everything but fellate Bush publicly in 2004.

But what's more disturbing is the way he's been sucking up to the christian right over the last year. We're living in an age where religion has far too much sway in our governmental decisions and we need to push back. McCain wants to be elected so much that he's willing to get into bed with those people, and I can't respect a person who does that.

You dont get elected in this country without appealing to the Christian Right, in this country, at least to some degree.

I personally dont have a problem with it, as long as its to a certain degree.
Yes, McCain is a Republican, and a Christian, and while this may mean he may have to tow the party line from time to time, he has also been outspoken against Bush's policies time and again, when no other Republican had the sack to do it.

That one even got me a little misty.


Remember Ross Perot?

Crazy, rich guy...ran for Pres in the 90's.
Got like 19% percent of the popular vote, pretty damned impressive for a third party...

anyways, his running mate was Admiral James Stockdale.
Stockdale was in the 'Hilton, too.
You oughta hear about what he did.

McCain is my hero. I would stump for McCain, I would vote for McCain, I would put on my uniform again to serve my country under McCain.

In a presidential election, I would always vote for a veteran over a non-veteran, unless they were clearly addle-pated or too far to the right or left to hear reason.

McCain is my hero. I would stump for McCain, I would vote for McCain, I would put on my uniform again to serve my country under McCain.

In a presidential election, I would always vote for a veteran over a non-veteran, unless they were clearly addle-pated or too far to the right or left to hear reason.


This particular Liberal is starting to wonder if he wouldnt do the same.
I would have to know, of course, how he feels about a few certain key issues, or if given the opportunity, if he would PRESS a few issues, but I certainly am starting to admire the mans character.

If the Reps are forced to run a more moderate candidate in the next election, becuase of Bush, Im wondering if McCain, might not be bad choice.

You dont get elected in this country without appealing to the Christian Right, in this country, at least to some degree.

I personally dont have a problem with it, as long as its to a certain degree.
Yes, McCain is a Republican, and a Christian, and while this may mean he may have to tow the party line from time to time, he has also been outspoken against Bush's policies time and again, when no other Republican had the sack to do it.
Let me begin by saying that I don't have a problem with politicians talking about their faith or even using those connections to appeal to voters--that's a bipartisan habit. (Despite the attempt by the farthest right wing of the republican party to paint the Democrats as the party of atheists, the fact is that most Democrats are people of faith.)

But the types that McCain has been sucking up to recently are the dangerous ones in my view--they're the ID proponents, the folks who want to turn the US into a theocracy where their particular brand of Christianity is the one in charge, the kind that want to put gays in jail and put women back in the kitchen with no control over their reproductive organs. They're the enemies of what America ought to stand for in my view, and anyone who sucks up to them automatically loses my support, no matter what else they do.

And something else--I don't get why McCain is doing it. He can't possibly hope to win them over in the primaries. If McCain is going to win the primaries, he'll do it with the veterans and the socially libertarian vote, not the religious right. They hate him because he's been critical of their hero--they'll vote for him in the general, but not in the primary.

Let me begin by saying that I don't have a problem with politicians talking about their faith or even using those connections to appeal to voters--that's a bipartisan habit. (Despite the attempt by the farthest right wing of the republican party to paint the Democrats as the party of atheists, the fact is that most Democrats are people of faith.)

But the types that McCain has been sucking up to recently are the dangerous ones in my view--they're the ID proponents, the folks who want to turn the US into a theocracy where their particular brand of Christianity is the one in charge, the kind that want to put gays in jail and put women back in the kitchen with no control over their reproductive organs. They're the enemies of what America ought to stand for in my view, and anyone who sucks up to them automatically loses my support, no matter what else they do.

Nevertheless, they do represent a particular voting body.
They may be extremists, but they vote.
If you can sell them on a fairly moderate Republican....I say more power to that particular person.

I'd much rather have them behind a guy like McCain, than a man like Bush.

McCain seems much less likely to amend the Constituion to discriminate against gays, or overturn Roe V Wade.

And something else--I don't get why McCain is doing it. He can't possibly hope to win them over in the primaries. If McCain is going to win the primaries, he'll do it with the veterans and the socially libertarian vote, not the religious right. They hate him because he's been critical of their hero--they'll vote for him in the general, but not in the primary.

Remember these last two elections..so close, every vote counted.
In the case last time around, Ohio was won by 400 votes.
That gave Bush the required number of electoral votes.

As a Candidate, you have to appeal to the edges, as well as the fence-sitting middle.

Remember these last two elections..so close, every vote counted.
In the case last time around, Ohio was won by 400 votes.
That gave Bush the required number of electoral votes.

As a Candidate, you have to appeal to the edges, as well as the fence-sitting middle.Yeah, but you have to get to the general election first, and to do that, you need primary voters, and McCain has too many people who are already darlings of the religious right to try to win those voters--he's got to get the other primary voters in order to have a shot at the nomination.

It reminds me of the 2000 election in a way. Part of the reason the DLC insisted on Joe Lieberman as the VP choice was because they figured that Florida would be important and that Lieberman would help not with the Jewish community so much as with the Cuban community. Lieberman has long been a supporter of the Cuban exiles. What they didn't count on was that the Cubans were never going to vote for Gore, not after the Elian Gonzales
affair. They went after a hostile constituency, and possibly lost voters from their core constituency (folks who voted Nader) as a result.

I respected McCain at one time, and might have even voted for him in 2000 had he been the Republican nominee. I would have liked being faced with that choice.

But his actions over the last two to three years--and I've posted this before in many other threads, so forgive me if it sounds familiar--have convinced me that something has changed in him. He wants to be President so badly that he's willing to sell himself out to make it happen. After what Bush did to him in South Carolina in 2000, no one would blame McCain for refusing to ever speak to the man again. Hell, I wouldn't blame him if he bitch-slapped Rove--you don't go after a man's family where I come from. McCain did everything but fellate Bush publicly in 2004.

But what's more disturbing is the way he's been sucking up to the christian right over the last year. We're living in an age where religion has far too much sway in our governmental decisions and we need to push back. McCain wants to be elected so much that he's willing to get into bed with those people, and I can't respect a person who does that.
Life is actually pretty simple for you, isn't it. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do and do as you do deserves no respect. Must be nice to have things down to a formula which fits every occasion. Most of the rest of us have to somehow muddle through with the world as it is, not as we prefer it to be.

Yeah, but you have to get to the general election first, and to do that, you need primary voters, and McCain has too many people who are already darlings of the religious right to try to win those voters--he's got to get the other primary voters in order to have a shot at the nomination.

It reminds me of the 2000 election in a way. Part of the reason the DLC insisted on Joe Lieberman as the VP choice was because they figured that Florida would be important and that Lieberman would help not with the Jewish community so much as with the Cuban community. Lieberman has long been a supporter of the Cuban exiles. What they didn't count on was that the Cubans were never going to vote for Gore, not after the Elian Gonzales
affair. They went after a hostile constituency, and possibly lost voters from their core constituency (folks who voted Nader) as a result.


I would thik he already would be a more endearing candidate to those (the christian right) already.
Hes a Christian...
and a Republican...

and hes not Condi Rice, wich already makes him a better candidate for the job.
and moderate enough to get the swing voters.

I dont think winning the primary would be the issue.
I think a lot of damage has been done to the Republican Party as a whole, and America may be leery of voting in another one, immediately after Bush.

However, as Election 2004 has taught us....Americans are media sheep, and can be bought by commericals, no matter how false, and dirty they may be.

So..its all in the advertising.

Life is actually pretty simple for you, isn't it. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do and do as you do deserves no respect. Must be nice to have things down to a formula which fits every occasion. Most of the rest of us have to somehow muddle through with the world as it is, not as we prefer it to be.


Ive been waiting for you......


Heh.

Have you, by chance, read this book?

Ive been waiting for you......

Heh.

Have you, by chance, read this book?
To which book do you make reference, oh Great One? :)

BTW ... I'm flattered that you were "waiting" for me. :eek:

Life is actually pretty simple for you, isn't it. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do and do as you do deserves no respect. Must be nice to have things down to a formula which fits every occasion. Most of the rest of us have to somehow muddle through with the world as it is, not as we prefer it to be.
That's funny, coming from you. I like the self-deprecation.

Oh wait--you're serious? I've given plenty of reason for my feelings about McCain. He's looking for support from people who are the American version of the Taliban, and that disqualifies him in my mind. If that makes me seem somehow smaller in your eyes, I suppose I'll just have to live with that.

Get off your fucking high horse, Eutrusca--you're just as partisan as I am, but less honest about it, and everyone here who reads the two of us knows it.

To which book do you make reference, oh Great One? :)

BTW ... I'm flattered that you were "waiting" for me. :eek:


"Faith of my Fathers"
-John McCain.

If you havent......from what little I know about you, from this forum....you certainly should.

That's funny, coming from you. I like the self-deprecation.

Oh wait--you're serious? I've given plenty of reason for my feelings about McCain. He's looking for support from people who are the American version of the Taliban, and that disqualifies him in my mind. If that makes me seem somehow smaller in your eyes, I suppose I'll just have to live with that.

Get off your fucking high horse, Eutrusca--you're just as partisan as I am, but less honest about it, and everyone here who reads the two of us knows it.
I wasn't referring to McCain specifically. Everyone else who reads my post knows it. I was referring to your general approach to things. Like most ideologes of my acquaintence, you have adopted a formulaic approach to life, and now defend it at every opportunity. Rather like fundamentalist religionists will defend a literal interpretation of their "holy book," irregardless of how much information, logic, or moral suasion is marshalled against it.

Strange that you would take a page from the fundamentalists, seeing as how you attack them so often.

I would thik he already would be a more endearing candidate to those (the christian right) already.
Hes a Christian...
and a Republican...

and hes not Condi Rice, wich already makes him a better candidate for the job.
and moderate enough to get the swing voters.

I dont think winning the primary would be the issue.
I think a lot of damage has been done to the Republican Party as a whole, and America may be leery of voting in another one, immediately after Bush.

However, as Election 2004 has taught us....Americans are media sheep, and can be bought by commericals, no matter how false, and dirty they may be.

So..its all in the advertising.
Well, there are other potential candidates with longer and deeper ties to the religious right--Jeb!, Sam Brownback, Newt Gingirch, and Bill Frist (who's been sucking up ever since he became Majority Leader), plus McCain would have newcomer competition from Mitt Romney. Condi's got a worse problem than McCain--her natural base, African-American voters, don't vote in large numbers in Republican primaries, so she'd have an even greater hurdle to overcome.

As a partisan Democrat, I'll say that there are three Republican candidates that worry me, and they are, in order, John McCain, Jeb! and Chuck Hagel, because the Democrats would have a harder than normal time beating any one of them. I'd love it if Bill Frist or Newt Gingrich were the nominee.

"Faith of my Fathers"
-John McCain.

If you havent......from what little I know about you, from this forum....you certainly should.
No, I have yet to read that, although it's on my list. I happen to like McCain rather a lot. To me, he seems like a relatively rational man, for a politico. :)

I wasn't referring to McCain specifically. Everyone else who reads my post knows it. I was referring to your general approach to things. Like most ideologes of my acquaintence, you have adopted a formulaic approach to life, and now defend it at every opportunity. Rather like fundamentalist religionists will defend a literal interpretation of their "holy book," irregardless of how much information, logic, or moral suasion is marshalled against it.

Strange that you would take a page from the fundamentalists, seeing as how you attack them so often.
Well, I looked back at that post to see if I could puzzle out what you're talking about, and I don't see it. Care to point out this "formula" you've supposedly sussed out? You might want to wipe it off with some toilet paper first.

here's an interesting question.

How do/would you show respect to your opponent?

I, for one, treat them with politeness, I do honestly try to see their veiwpoint to get a better understanding as to what they are saying and fighting for. I never disreguard anything they say... even if they are rude and trolling.

No, I have yet to read that, although it's on my list. I happen to like McCain rather a lot. To me, he seems like a relatively rational man, for a politico. :)


Well Im assuming you read my first post, so you already know the impact it had on me.
This bitterly cynical Liberal was nearly reduced to tears by his accounts of his days in Hanoi.

Given your military background, I would highly suggest you bump it up on your list.
Not only does it account his days in 'Nam, but also his father and Grandfather, as well.
Im sure I dont need to tell you who they were.

I suppose this thread serves a couple of purposes.
One, to talk about the book, and McCain.
Two, to display, how very important, respect is.

Respect for your enemy, or advarsaries, is important, I feel.
Wether its on a battlefield, or in a debate forum.
I think that the act of displaying such respect to ones enemy, even shows a certain level of nobility.

I think its something everyone should have.

Well Im assuming you read my first post, so you already know the impact it had on me.
This bitterly cynical Liberal was nearly reduced to tears by his accounts of his days in Hanoi.

Given your military background, I would highly suggest you bump it up on your list.
Not only does it account his days in 'Nam, but also his father and Grandfather, as well.
Im sure I dont need to tell you who they were.

I suppose this thread serves a couple of purposes.
One, to talk about the book, and McCain.
Two, to display, how very important, respect is.

Respect for your enemy, or advarsaries, is important, I feel.
Wether its on a battlefield, or in a debate forum.
I think that the act of displaying such respect to ones enemy, even shows a certain level of nobility.

I think its something everyone should have.It's a complex issue. I respect McCain's service in the military, and at one time I really respected his political service. I applauded him very recently when he psuhed so hard for the anti-torture legislation that Bush said he was going to essentially ignore.

But I can't respect him wholeheartedly, for reasons I've gone into above.

I read excerpts from James Stockdale's book about his time in Vietnam when I was a kid, and they affected me tremendously--my grandmother had a subscription to Reader's Digest and they serialized it in part. McCain shared that experience, and for that he will always have a certain amount of respect, no matter where he stands on issues.

But that only extends so far.

I may well have voted for him in 2000, had he been the candidate. I was less partisan and the religious right hadn't reared its ugly head as openly then, and had he won the Presidency, that movement might have been crippled as a result.

But now they're powerful, and instead of sticking to the people who have supported him all this time, McCain is pandering to them in hopes that they'll give him one last shot at the brass ring, and I can't ally myself with someone who does that, not even if they're a member of my own party.

I have actually met McCain, he was at a republican rally once when I was living in Arizona, I got to sit right next to him :D He is a pretty good guy, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. (even though we do have some conflicting views, he agrees with me about the important stuff, and I think he is moderate enough to actually win the presidency.)

It's a complex issue. I respect McCain's service in the military, and at one time I really respected his political service. I applauded him very recently when he psuhed so hard for the anti-torture legislation that Bush said he was going to essentially ignore.

But I can't respect him wholeheartedly, for reasons I've gone into above.

I read excerpts from James Stockdale's book about his time in Vietnam when I was a kid, and they affected me tremendously--my grandmother had a subscription to Reader's Digest and they serialized it in part. McCain shared that experience, and for that he will always have a certain amount of respect, no matter where he stands on issues.

But that only extends so far.

I may well have voted for him in 2000, had he been the candidate. I was less partisan and the religious right hadn't reared its ugly head as openly then, and had he won the Presidency, that movement might have been crippled as a result.

But now they're powerful, and instead of sticking to the people who have supported him all this time, McCain is pandering to them in hopes that they'll give him one last shot at the brass ring, and I can't ally myself with someone who does that, not even if they're a member of my own party.

I agree.

However, remember the South Park episode about the "Turd Sandwich Vs Giant Douche"?

Every election for the next couple of decades is likely to be similar.
In McCain, however, there may be a chance to have a candidate that may appeal to more individuals than the previous competitors.

I doubt anyone will ever truly like everything about every candidate, but the key is to get a guy in office, that has enough character, and integrity to do a decent job, and maybe even a few strokes of good.

Might not McCain be that man?

Might not he, instead of "The lesser of two evils", be "Not so bad"?

That, at least, may be a start back into the right direction.

Well, I looked back at that post to see if I could puzzle out what you're talking about, and I don't see it. Care to point out this "formula" you've supposedly sussed out? You might want to wipe it off with some toilet paper first.
Wipe off your own damned formulas. :p

Formula for The Nazz:

1. Assume that anything from the liberal left is gospel.

2. Assume that anything from the conservative right is bullshit.

3. Assume that anything done simply to get elected is somehow "wrong."

4. Assume that anyone left is great.

I agree.

However, remember the South Park episode about the "Turd Sandwich Vs Giant Douche"?

Every election for the next couple of decades is likely to be similar.
In McCain, however, there may be a chance to have a candidate that may appeal to more individuals than the previous competitors.

I doubt anyone will ever truly like everything about every candidate, but the key is to get a guy in office, that has enough character, and integrity to do a decent job, and maybe even a few strokes of good.

Might not McCain be that man?

Might not he, instead of "The lesser of two evils", be "Not so bad"?

That, at least, may be a start back into the right direction.
Tsk! You're trying to be far too rational. Shame on you! :D

4. Assume that anyone left is great.

Quick question...

By that, you mean "Its wrong to assume someone IS great, BECAUSE theyre left-leaning...

or

"No one who is Left-leaning CAN BE great?"

Just need a lil clarification.

Tsk! You're trying to be far too rational. Shame on you! :D


Im almost always this rational.

Except for the rare occasions when Im a raving lunatic.

Guess wich one I am now.........heehee.

Quick question...

By that, you mean "Its wrong to assume someone IS great, BECAUSE theyre left-leaning...

or

"No one who is Left-leaning CAN BE great?"

Just need a lil clarification.
it's probably wrong to assume anything.

left-leaning can be great, depending on one's definition of great, I suppose. I know a few on the left I would vote for, :eek: but I won't mention them, because I figure the left doesn't like them very much lately anyway. ;)

it's probably wrong to assume anything.

left-leaning can be great, depending on one's definition of great, I suppose. I know a few on the left I would vote for, :eek: but I won't mention them, because I figure the left doesn't like them very much lately anyway. ;)
The one thing I take comfort in when I disagree with anyone is that I am more like them than either of us will ever admit.

it's probably wrong to assume anything.

left-leaning can be great, depending on one's definition of great, I suppose. I know a few on the left I would vote for, :eek: but I won't mention them, because I figure the left doesn't like them very much lately anyway. ;)


Let me share with you my idea of "Great Men in Politics".

There are but two Great men left, in politics, and one isnt active all the time.

1. Jimmy Carter.

2. John MCain.

The rest, although I may like some of them, are the same varying degree of douche, as the rest of us.

Wipe off your own damned formulas. :p

Formula for The Nazz:

1. Assume that anything from the liberal left is gospel.

2. Assume that anything from the conservative right is bullshit.

3. Assume that anything done simply to get elected is somehow "wrong."

4. Assume that anyone left is great.
And where, pray tell, have I done that in this thread? As far as I can remember, the liberal left hasn't even been mentioned, much less debated. Backwoods Squatches and I have been talking about McCain, and he's certainly no leftie.

Secondly, there's a difference between the conservative right and the religious right, and again, I've been very careful to make that distinction here. (I'm talking about the religious right when it comes to McCain's recent pandering, in case you missed that.)

Thirdly, you're making an absurd jump as to what I've said about McCain's pandering. Simply because his pandering to the extreme religious right disqualifies him in my eyes, that doesn't mean that talking to constituents in a way that endears yourself to them is wrong. You're taking a specific example and trying to make a universal out of it. Not a shock, as it's a time-honored tactic of yours.

Fourth--covered in the first point. We haven't been talking about lefties in this thread, and what's more, there are plenty of lefties I have lots of contempt for.

What do you know, Eutrusca? Wrong again. At least you're used to it by now.

Im almost always this rational.

Except for the rare occasions when Im a raving lunatic.

Guess wich one I am now.........heehee.
I wouldn't presume! [ shudders ] :D

Thirdly, you're making an absurd jump as to what I've said about McCain's pandering. Simply because his pandering to the extreme religious right disqualifies him in my eyes, that doesn't mean that talking to constituents in a way that endears yourself to them is wrong. You're taking a specific example and trying to make a universal out of it. Not a shock, as it's a time-honored tactic of yours.

I think this is the objection that I have - the automatic assumption that a segment of the constituency is to be denied any voice in politics because you don't like them, and any contact with them by any legitimate politician is "pandering" and therefore suspect or illegitimate.

If the religious right is to be denied, you're denying quite a few people.

mccain is too old. he will turn 72 in '08. and, if you can believe it, he will only get OLDER every year after that.

id like to get a democrat as president but im afraid of what they will do if they gain control over congress. the pendulum can swing really hard when the opposition has gone so far in the wrong direction.

so if the dems take back congress, id support mccain over any republican i can think of even though he is too old for the job.

i guess what im saying is that respect is respect but what we really need is some check to presidential power.

I think this is the objection that I have - the automatic assumption that a segment of the constituency is to be denied any voice in politics because you don't like them, and any contact with them by any legitimate politician is "pandering" and therefore suspect or illegitimate.

If the religious right is to be denied, you're denying quite a few people.

I think he may be reffering specifically to the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell types.

The freekin dangerous ones.
Not nessecarily the average Christian Conservative types.

mccain is too old. he will turn 72 in '08. and, if you can believe it, he will only get OLDER every year after that.

id like to get a democrat as president but im afraid of what they will do if they gain control over congress. the pendulum can swing really hard when the opposition has gone so far in the wrong direction.

so if the dems take back congress, id support mccain over any republican i can think of even though he is too old for the job.

i guess what im saying is that respect is respect but what we really need is some check to presidential power.


Reagan was in his eighties, when elected, if im not mistaken

I think he may be reffering specifically to the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell types.

The freekin dangerous ones.
Not nessecarily the average Christian Conservative types.

I could use the same argument to criticize a politician for pandering to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

It's an illegitimate argument - we're all entitled to vote, to speak, and to have politicians meet with us - regardless of how wacky some people might think that our views are.

And everyone deserves a voice in politics. Saying that they're crazy or stupid won't make them go away.

I think this is the objection that I have - the automatic assumption that a segment of the constituency is to be denied any voice in politics because you don't like them, and any contact with them by any legitimate politician is "pandering" and therefore suspect or illegitimate.

If the religious right is to be denied, you're denying quite a few people.I'm not saying that they should be denied a voice in politics--you will never see me write that. What I am saying is that when it comes to my support for a politician, pandering to the religious right is a dealbreaker for me. And I'm not alone either.

Why is this a hard concept to understand? Every politically minded voter has dealbreaking issues. For some people it's abortion. For other's, it's gun rights. This is mine. If you're buddy-buddy with the American Taliban, I'm opposed to you.

Yes, I would rather that the religous right had less power than it does, because I believe that they have more influence than their numbers warrant, but that doesn't mean I believe they should be denied a political voice--everyone should have a political voice, no matter how rancid their views may be.

Given your military background, I would highly suggest you bump it up on your list. Not only does it account his days in 'Nam, but also his father and Grandfather, as well. Im sure I dont need to tell you who they were.

I suppose this thread serves a couple of purposes. One, to talk about the book, and McCain. Two, to display, how very important, respect is.

Respect for your enemy, or advarsaries, is important, I feel. Wether its on a battlefield, or in a debate forum. I think that the act of displaying such respect to ones enemy, even shows a certain level of nobility.

I think its something everyone should have.
It's relatively easy to respect an opponent on the battlefield who is accomplished at his profession, who does his best to avoid the euphemistic "collateral damage," and who is merciful to defeated foes. What isn't easy is to have respect for an opponent who does the opposite.

It's relatively easy to respect someone who differs with you on a forum such as this one, who is actually willing to read what you have to say, who accepts your statements at face value ( as opposed to simply rejecting them out of hand because they don't fit his/her preconcieved notions, or because they have a problem with who/what they percieve you to be ), and who doesn't resort to name-calling and snide comments about you. What isn't easy is to have respect for someone who differs with you and does the opposite.

Reagan was in his eighties, when elected, if im not mistaken
You're mistaken. He was 70.

... everyone should have a political voice, no matter how rancid their views may be.
LOL! "Rancid." :D

*snip*
I respect McCain as a human being, but his recent actions (not to mention his consistent Bush-pandering) have killed my respect for him as a politician and leader.

Reagan was in his eighties, when elected, if im not mistaken
he turned 70 shortly after taking the oath of office

and he is a good example of why a president that old isnt a good idea.

I could use the same argument to criticize a politician for pandering to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

As well you should, Im my opinion.
Those guys are almost as crazy as the other two.
However, I still occasionally find myself agreeing with them, even if most of the time, I simply wish they would shut the hell up, and go away.


It's an illegitimate argument - we're all entitled to vote, to speak, and to have politicians meet with us - regardless of how wacky some people might think that our views are.

Then would you mind if your candidate met with members of a "American Nazi" party, to accept campaign donations? (assuming there were such a party still, and they actually had any money).

Extremists, are dangerous, zealots...are to be loathed.

And everyone deserves a voice in politics. Saying that they're crazy or stupid won't make them go away.

Karl Rove might disagree with you.

I respect McCain as a human being, but his recent actions (not to mention his consistent Bush-pandering) have killed my respect for him as a politician and leader.


Correct me if Im wrong, but hasnt he spoken out against Bush, several times, when no other Republican would?

I have also seen him tow the party line, but ive also seen him speak up and call Bullshit, when its been displayed.

id like to get a democrat as president but im afraid of what they will do if they gain control over congress. the pendulum can swing really hard when the opposition has gone so far in the wrong direction.


That damned pendulum scares me more then anything Bush could dream of pushing through. I've never known of a person who could invoke such a disproportionate amount of pure hatred from so many people. I would hate to see what would happen if those people ever put someone in power. :(

Correct me if Im wrong, but hasnt he spoken out against Bush, several times, when no other Republican would?

I have also seen him tow the party line, but ive also seen him speak up and call Bullshit, when its been displayed.

I think for some voters, agreeing with anything Bush says or does is anathema.

Bush could say, "The sun came up this morning." And McCain might agree. And some voters would say, "McCain sucks because he agrees with Bush".

Correct me if Im wrong, but hasnt he spoken out against Bush, several times, when no other Republican would?

I have also seen him tow the party line, but ive also seen him speak up and call Bullshit, when its been displayed.
He's better than some, to be sure. However, I set high standards for those who choose to lead. I don't want to hijack the thread with a discussion of Bush's wrongdoing, but at this point I consider ANY leader who supports the Bush administration to be unfit for office.

As a result, I have a great deal of trouble voting these days.

I think for some voters, agreeing with anything Bush says or does is anathema.

Bush could say, "The sun came up this morning." And McCain might agree. And some voters would say, "McCain sucks because he agrees with Bush".
I'd fit that category, I suppose. If McCain simply happens to hold an opinion that Bush also holds, there's no inherent problem there (for instance, if they both believe the sun rises in the morning). However, I oppose any politician, of any party, who supports George Bush and/or his administration. I also oppose any politician who supports anything BECAUSE George Bush supports it.

It's ok to believe something or support something in spite of the fact that Bush also supports it, but if it happens too often you probably should start getting worried about yourself... :)

He's better than some, to be sure. However, I set high standards for those who choose to lead. I don't want to hijack the thread with a discussion of Bush's wrongdoing, but at this point I consider ANY leader who supports the Bush administration to be unfit for office..

You and I have argued the same thing, in many threads about Bush, on the same side.

Let me ask you this.

Would you rather have another Neo-Con in office.....

Or someone with a touch more sanity?

No Republican is going to be taken seriously if they constantly disagree openly with a President of thier own party.
That leads to Zel Miller territory.....and hes damn crazy.

You and I have argued the same thing, in many threads about Bush, on the same side.

Let me ask you this.

Would you rather have another Neo-Con in office.....

Or someone with a touch more sanity?

No Republican is going to be taken seriously if they constantly disagree openly with a President of thier own party.
That leads to Zel Miller territory.....and hes damn crazy.
Well, that assumes that the Democrats won't win in 2008, which could happen, believe it or not (unless that's who you were talking about when you said "someone with a touch more sanity" :)).

But addressing your point about the choice between a Neo-Con Republican or another Republican, it's possible that by 2008, the Republican party faithful may be so tired of Bush that the best way to run a primary campaign would be to be an anti-Bush. It's a risky move--you'll either win it all or finish last--but it's a way to make yourself stand out of a crowded field, so it could happen.

I'd fit that category, I suppose. If McCain simply happens to hold an opinion that Bush also holds, there's no inherent problem there (for instance, if they both believe the sun rises in the morning). However, I oppose any politician, of any party, who supports George Bush and/or his administration. I also oppose any politician who supports anything BECAUSE George Bush supports it.

It's ok to believe something or support something in spite of the fact that Bush also supports it, but if it happens too often you probably should start getting worried about yourself... :)

Let's take a "for instance".

After the 9-11 attacks, we asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden.
They refused, largely because they were his primary supporters and training ground.
Bush ordered that we invade Afghanistan.

Do you think we should never have invaded Afghanistan? It was a Bush policy decision to do so.

Let's take a "for instance".

After the 9-11 attacks, we asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden.
They refused, largely because they were his primary supporters and training ground.
Bush ordered that we invade Afghanistan.

Do you think we should never have invaded Afghanistan? It was a Bush policy decision to do so.
I supported it, but not because Bush supported it, but in spite of the fact that Bush supported it. What I didn't support, however, is the halfass way he did the job. See the difference?

Well, that assumes that the Democrats won't win in 2008, which could happen, believe it or not (unless that's who you were talking about when you said "someone with a touch more sanity" :)).

But addressing your point about the choice between a Neo-Con Republican or another Republican, it's possible that by 2008, the Republican party faithful may be so tired of Bush that the best way to run a primary campaign would be to be an anti-Bush. It's a risky move--you'll either win it all or finish last--but it's a way to make yourself stand out of a crowded field, so it could happen.


Im banking on it, actually.
Im seriously hoping, that the dems will indeed win, but this will require a candidate with a spine.
Something the Dems have not had since Clinton.
A candidate who is willing to play as dirty as Karl Rove.
Otherwise, they shouldnt even show up.

However, I think the Reps will be forced to back someone considerably more moderate...IE, perhaps McCain.

Either way, as I see it...America wins.

I supported it, but not because Bush supported it, but in spite of the fact that Bush supported it. What I didn't support, however, is the halfass way he did the job. See the difference?
I see the difference in your case.

I've talked to more than one Bush-hater in real life however, that, "half assed way" aside, object to the mere act of invasion at all just because Bush did it.

Not the way it was done - the mere act. Then they turn around and say that it would be a legal and good act if a Democrat had done it.

You're obviously not in that category, but many are.

Im banking on it, actually.
Im seriously hoping, that the dems will indeed win, but this will require a candidate with a spine.
Something the Dems have not had since Clinton.
A candidate who is willing to play as dirty as Karl Rove.
Otherwise, they shouldnt even show up.

However, I think the Reps will be forced to back someone considerably more moderate...IE, perhaps McCain.

Either way, as I see it...America wins.
Well, I hope you're right (about the second part, that is--I'd prefer the Dems have a candidate with a spine, like Russ Feingold maybe), but the pessimist in me thinks we're just going to see more and more polarization for the next few years until there's an explosion of some kind.

Well, I hope you're right (about the second part, that is--I'd prefer the Dems have a candidate with a spine, like Russ Feingold maybe), but the pessimist in me thinks we're just going to see more and more polarization for the next few years until there's an explosion of some kind.


I would agree.

The country has never been more partisan, and its not likely to get any better, unless more moderate candidates can get into office.
Extreme left...makes extreme right pissy, and vice versa.
The only solution, seems to be moderation, and a candidate that can espouse such qualities.
I dont honestly know if McCain is that man, but he certainly seems to be leaning that way.

The trick..is going to be control of the House and Senate, in 2008.
If the reps have it, and keep it, any Democrat Pres, is likely to have the same trouble Carter did.
Everything he suggests will be turned down, and pissed on, no matter how good an idea it may be.

I respected McCain at one time, and might have even voted for him in 2000 had he been the Republican nominee. I would have liked being faced with that choice.

But his actions over the last two to three years--and I've posted this before in many other threads, so forgive me if it sounds familiar--have convinced me that something has changed in him. He wants to be President so badly that he's willing to sell himself out to make it happen. After what Bush did to him in South Carolina in 2000, no one would blame McCain for refusing to ever speak to the man again. Hell, I wouldn't blame him if he bitch-slapped Rove--you don't go after a man's family where I come from. McCain did everything but fellate Bush publicly in 2004.

But what's more disturbing is the way he's been sucking up to the christian right over the last year. We're living in an age where religion has far too much sway in our governmental decisions and we need to push back. McCain wants to be elected so much that he's willing to get into bed with those people, and I can't respect a person who does that.
No fair. I'm not allowed to agree with you! :p (Ok, for largely different reasons, but still...)

At the very least I consider him a RINO. He's a Manchurian Candidate for sure.

There's only a couple of repubs I'd consider voting for and one is John McCain (I'd CONSIDER it). I think it's good to have a veteran, especially a combat veteran, as the civilian head of our military.
IMO if McCain runs he'll win. He's stated that he thinks the minimium wage needs to be raised and that something needs to be done about the increasing unavailability of healthcare to many thus swaying a large part of the democratic vote. He's anti-abortion thus guaranteeing a large part of the republican vote.
McCain, in the past, hasn't been able to secure the republican nomination because a sizeable repub majority are extreme right-wingers. However, I think that if he'd been nominated in 2000 rather than GWB the election wouldn't even have been close as those repubs who wouldn't vote for him in the nomination process would've in the presidential election.

Yeah, but you have to get to the general election first, and to do that, you need primary voters, and McCain has too many people who are already darlings of the religious right to try to win those voters--he's got to get the other primary voters in order to have a shot at the nomination.

It reminds me of the 2000 election in a way. Part of the reason the DLC insisted on Joe Lieberman as the VP choice was because they figured that Florida would be important and that Lieberman would help not with the Jewish community so much as with the Cuban community. Lieberman has long been a supporter of the Cuban exiles. What they didn't count on was that the Cubans were never going to vote for Gore, not after the Elian Gonzales
affair. They went after a hostile constituency, and possibly lost voters from their core constituency (folks who voted Nader) as a result.

I agree with you on your comments on Cubans, actually more Cubans would have voted for Gore if Elian Gonzales had been paroled into the USA on humanitarian grounds
and Al Gore would have been president, blame President Clinton, Janet Reno and Fidel Castro for the election of President George W Bush, very happy.

I have always liked Senator Joe Lieberman he has a proven anti Fidel Castro record, so does Republican Rudolf Guilliani not to sure on John McCain I have to search his record.

No fair. I'm not allowed to agree with you! :p (Ok, for largely different reasons, but still...)

At the very least I consider him a RINO. He's a Manchurian Candidate for sure.
What exactly do you mean by a "Manchurian Candidate?" I mean, I know the film, and I don't think you're suggesting that he's been brainwashed and would be under the control of a foreign power, so I have to assume you mean it in some context with the religious right, but I'm just not making it fit.

What exactly do you mean by a "Manchurian Candidate?" I mean, I know the film, and I don't think you're suggesting that he's been brainwashed and would be under the control of a foreign power, so I have to assume you mean it in some context with the religious right, but I'm just not making it fit.
I mean basically, as you intimated, he is not his own man - on several fronts.

I mean basically, as you intimated, he is not his own man - on several fronts.
Ah--then by that definition, isn't practically every politician on earth a Manchurian Candidate? Some are worse than others, obviously.

Ah--then by that definition, isn't practically every politician on earth a Manchurian Candidate? Some are worse than others, obviously.
Everybody but the Libertarians! :p

Even though a man may be on the opposite side of politics, respect is earned, and John McCain, has earned mine.
Actually that inspired more respect in me for Mike Christian than for John McCain.

Actually that inspired more respect in me for Mike Christian than for John McCain.


Oh, absolutely.

This is something that happened while McCain was the only other person besides Christian, that was awake, and McCain related the tale.
I was merely using this as an example of one man.
Im certainly not attempting to attribute this action to McCain, nor, would I need to.
McCain had his own trials in Hanoi, and none of them were anything you or I would want to endure.

I think for some voters, agreeing with anything Bush says or does is anathema.

Bush could say, "The sun came up this morning." And McCain might agree. And some voters would say, "McCain sucks because he agrees with Bush".
:D
That one garners a grin. Three guesses why, the first two don't count.

And per ...
Bush ordered that we invade Afghanistan.

Do you think we should never have invaded Afghanistan? It was a Bush policy decision to do so.
Perhaps you'd care to post some current news on Afghanistan's progress ... the opium issue or maybe about monies received from the Bush admin to pay off the Taliban to keep them short of politics?

What exactly do you mean by a "Manchurian Candidate?" I mean, I know the film, and I don't think you're suggesting that he's been brainwashed and would be under the control of a foreign power, so I have to assume you mean it in some context with the religious right, but I'm just not making it fit.
Uhm there were two of them ... the first with Ol' Blue Eyes and the second with Denzel. And they differed enough to say (subtly) they're different movies with different intent.

Life is actually pretty simple for you, isn't it. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do and do as you do deserves no respect. Must be nice to have things down to a formula which fits every occasion. Most of the rest of us have to somehow muddle through with the world as it is, not as we prefer it to be.
It would appear some have an EXTREMELY short memory, given a gang-rape or two.... :(

And you still didn't answer the second post.

Uhm there were two of them ... the first with Ol' Blue Eyes and the second with Denzel. And they differed enough to say (subtly) they're different movies with different intent.
Yeah, but the second one blew chunks while the first one was one of the best films ever made. :D

I have respect for McCain for disagreeing with the Republicans and actually having the guts to say so. (I'm gaining a little respect for Arlen Specter for the same reason.) With that said, I wouldn't vote for him if he ran. I mean if he ran against Lieberman, I'd vote for McCain (McCain's less conservative) but there will be a third party candidate who's better.

But to reiterate my original point - I think he's worthy of a modicum of respect.

Yeah, but the second one blew chunks while the first one was one of the best films ever made. :D
OMFG! Something we absolutely agree on!