« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
John McCain's Scurrilous, Digraceful Campaign
When I was in boot camp, we would have classes—weapon’s
training, etc.—in the second floor bay where we were housed. Strategically based on the wall at the front
of the bay were the seven army values, amongst these 'honor', 'integrity' and
'personal courage'. I’m sure the thought
was that the more you soaked in the words, the more they moved to the forefront of
your mind and, subsequently, your life. The idea was that, when making choices in how to conduct yourself, to use the values a guiding forces.
It wasn’t enough to simply be a soldier in accordance with those values. They were core values with which to live your life.
John McCain lacks almost all sense of honor, integrity & personal courage.
John McCain is running a campaign predicated on “putting America first”. At today’s Town Hall meeting, McCain again told the story of refusing early release while a POW. He couched the story, as he often does, in a sense of “honor”; specifically the Naval “code of honor” that stated that release should occur in accordance by length of detention.
As McCain also often does, he used this story to push the notion that he places “country” before personal welfare. Putting aside the disgraceful manner that McCain is attempting to exploit the idea held by a certain percentage of knuckle draggers that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim manchurian candidate, McCain’s actions have disgraced both himself and that Naval “code of honor” that he repeatedly purports to uphold.
Whether it’s campaign commercials that state “the American president that Americans have been waiting for” or replying “I don’t know” when asked whether Sen. Obama was a Socialist, John McCain has run a scurrilous, disgraceful campaign.
The coup de grace was yesterday when McCain referring to the differences in positions between himself and Barack Obama on Iraq stated:
"I had the courage and judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Sen. Obama would rather lose the war in order to win a political campaign."
There has been a debate in the past few days between The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan and TNR’s Jonathan Chait about whether or not, even if he employed ‘Rovian’ campaign tactics, Sen. McCain actually ‘believed’ in them. Sullivan summed up Sen. McCain’s actions thusly:
I don't know what Chait et al mean by 'the politics of Karl Rove'. To me, it has always involved a willingness to do just about anything to win, and in particular to make deeply dishonorable attacks on one's opponent. Saying that one's opponent would lose a war on purpose, for political reasons strikes me as pretty deeply dishonorable. Duels have been fought for far less.
McCain does have an "awkward forced smile" at the end of the clip I posted, but while that might make it less irritating to Chait, it does not have the same effect on me. Likewise, I'm sure Senator McCain knows that what he's saying is not true. But, as I said, I have no idea why the fact that he's lying about his opponent's patriotism and honor on purpose is supposed to make me think better of him.
John McCain is an adult. No one is forcing him to say these things. It's time people stopped making excuses for him.
I agree with this general sentiment, but I will take it one
further. Not only do I hold John McCain
in less regard for employing these deeply dishonorable campaign tactics, I hold
him in even less regard than the Karl Roves of the world that employ these
tactics but seem to actually believe in them.
And McCain then hits the disgraceful trifecta, by couching all of these disgraceful, scurrilous attacks in terms of “honor”.
Sen. McCain’s campaign tactics are a disgrace to words such
as “honor”, “integrity” & “personal courage”. As a side note, you can rest assured that when someone is predicating everything they are telling you in terms of their "honor", that they fully understand just how dishonorable their actions are.
So, what about you Sen. McCain? Have you any sense of honor left?
Comments (43)
Whoops! Sorry for the typo in the title. Obviously, that was meant to be 'Disgraceful'.
Hope that doesn't distract too terribly from the content of the diary.
July 23, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not wrory auobt yuor selplnig...did you konw taht the hmaun mnid deos not raed ecah ltretr but the wolhe wrod at ocne? As lnog as the frsit and lsat ltretes are in the rhgit pacle you can siltl raed the wrdos. Cool, huh? And I was tuhgat taht selplnig was ipmrotnat!
In spite of how ridiculous the candidate is, he's still not behind by much...I flat out cannot believe this is even a contest. The man is a complete joke.
July 24, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great posting. John McCain really should be staggeringly ashamed of himself for attacking Obama with these charges that he wants to lose a war for political reasons. McCain has a huge ego and a clear sense of entitlement to the Presidency. He just hates the fact that Obama, this whelp and newbie to the political stage, has the temerity, the 'audacity', to get in McCain's way on his way to his presumed Prez title. McCain has nothing left but negativity and attacks. 'Eff' new ideas, and 'eff' anyone else who gets in McCain's way. He will stop at nothing, clearly, to get to the WH. He is a small shadow of the 'man' that we saw in 2000. How sad, pathetic, and undeserving to what he's accomplished in his life.
July 23, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
since no one on the right seems to be able to enunciate what "winning" the war would look like, they are on shaky grounds talking about "losing" it.
Why is "winning" the war so important to begin with?
Does it trump all the other needed changes that need to be made: repairing our infrastructure, transitioning from fossil fuels, eliminating poverty and illiteracy, feeding the hungry...?
Maybe to achieve the latter group, "losing" the former could even be seen as desirable..
If there was a necessary entailment, which there is not.
The GOP have become such retrograde militarists! They are totally bankrupt.
We should really ask them: "what are the winning conditions for Iraq?" Terrorist "chiefs" coming to a surrender table and signing surrender papers? All sunni and shia males in jail?
July 23, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This doesn't affect the content of your post, but it's not Sully himself who's been debating with Chait -- it's hilzoy of Obsidian Wings, who is guest blogging on the Daily Dish.
Here's my two-sentence take: The only reason why people aren't more outraged by the line about Obama deliberately "losing the war" is that no one really believes anymore that there is a "war" in Iraq to be won or lost. Just a withdrawal to be managed. It's transparently empty rhetoric.
That being said, he still needs to fry for this crap. Klein's word "scurillous" was well-chosen.
July 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info.
July 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with this post wholeheartedly, and I would add that McCain's treatment of Gen. Wesley Clark for very true statements that were always prefaced by statements of respect for McCain's service in the military, was once again an example of his absolutely disgraceful behavior and obvious lack of the very integrity and honor that he so loudly and continuously trumpets in self-congratulation.
I don't know if his strident claims of moral superiority resonate with anyone, but to me they come off as desperate, weak and pathetic. Too bad, too. He might once have been an honorable man, but his naked ambition to be president has turned him into a tragic figure and a horror as a candidate.
July 24, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I do not understand at all why everyone was not more supportive of Gen. Wesley Clark's statements about John McCain. I have no idea why John McCain is still in the race. I truly wonder if he can hold up as a candidate. I am truly sick of hearing the McCain camp complain about media bias because from what I can see the media has been favorable to McCain insofar as not covering, making light of, or trying to alter or spin his regular mistakes. The energy coming from this campaign feels very much like the Bush adminstration... and I do believe that a majority of the american people know we need anything but more of the Bush adminstration... I guess I should feel grateful that he is such a ridiculous candidate.
July 24, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If John McCain could set forth the conditions in Iraq that he would consider "victory", I'd say he had a case. As it is, it's just a stall tactic. He needs to tell us precisely where the goalposts are located. How many Starbucks coffeeshops in Baghdad? How many violence-free days? How many shopping malls open for business?
Here's why McCain won't define success: because it's all about the oil. When the oil is flowing freely and American corporations have control of the oil fields, then the Republicans will declare "victory", and it won't matter what else is going on in the country. McCain doesn't want to say that out loud. But that's clearly the goal. As far as the Republicans are concerned, Raul Castro can run the country and put everyone in prison. As long as we get the oil, they'll consider this a victory.
July 24, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely priceless! You bash McCain for saying 'I don't know' if Obama is a socialist. Let me answer it for you, yes he is. His 'church' that he attended for 20 years is based on the Marxist principles of Cone and the philosophy of black liberation. His economic policies are taken straight from Hugo Chavez. He is a classic big government, wealth redistributing, higher taxes on the evil rich, socialist.
As far as losing the war, it was Harry Reid that declared the war lost a year ago. The Democratic party's entire campaign in 2006 was based on the war is lost we must retreat. Democrats constantly celebrated each setback, each bombing, each troop casualty. (I know you will all be in an uproar over this, and deny it, but too bad. Look back at the postings on the DailyKOS, or AmericaBlog, or HuffPost, or any number of leftwing sites. The postings are there. I read them and responded to them at the time. Just like Vietnam you crossed the line from opposing the war to opposing the troops. And don't tell me that that was only a few bad apples, I never saw any democrats condemn them) Had Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had their way, this war would have been lost.
July 24, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few left wingers didn't "support" the troops up to your standards, so therefore, all Obama supporters, and the Candidate himself, are Socialist, treasonous pond scum.
Logic is not your strong suit, sir.
July 24, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the Funk & Wagnalls's Wingnut to English Dictionary:
support the troops v.i. phrase: kill the troops for power and profit.
July 24, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I don't hold all Obama supporters responsible for the actions of a few. I pointed it out to note how ALL republicans and ALL McCain supporters are treated here. However, I do hold Reid, Pelosi, and Obama accountable for their statements and actions. Reid declared the war lost, Pelosi said that and other outrageous things, and Obama both voted with them and never condemned their outrageous statements.
July 24, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
ALL Christian churches, if they're properly following the teachings of Christ, are socialist. Jesus was an anti-capitalist.
July 24, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Had Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had their way, this war would have been lost.
If by "lost" you mean "over," you are correct. It was lost it 2003. That's settled.
July 24, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I could debate you over that ridiculous statement that the war was lost in 2003, but I remember your sarcastic response when I tried to be nice to you. So, again, adios.
July 24, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I could debate you over that ridiculous statement that the war was lost in 2003
Could you? That would be interesting to see. So far, I haven't actually seen you do any debating at all.
I remember your sarcastic response when I tried to be nice to you.
Well, it's good to see that you remember something. You seem to have forgotten how Pres. Cheney, er, Bush sent too few troops into Iraq with no justification, too little planning, and pallets of dollars. You seem to forget how Sen. McCain dragged out his pom poms and cheered as American troops died for years and for nothing. You seem to forget how the Bushies completely ignored terrorism, despite repeated warnings, until they discovered post-9/11 that it made an even better political gimmick than cutting taxes for the rich and services for the poor.
And where it comes to sarcasm, let me suggest this you may have some difficulty attracting sympathy based on this complaint. If you or Sen. McCain can't deal with sarcasm, you both might want to avoid political debate (as Sen. McCain already does), and you both might want to cut down on its use yourselves.
So, again, adios.
And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster grant you parmesan on your meatball.
July 24, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then you must be an absolute menace, because you certainly have VERY little. You condemn Bush for sending in too few troops, yet fail to acknowledge that McCain made the same complaint at the time. You claim Bush ignored terrorism in the 7.5 months he was in office prior to 9/11, yet are totally ignorant of the fact that after only 2 months in office they had successfully negotiated access to Uzbek bases to position themselves for dealing with the Taliban. They were preparing to move against them when 9/11 happened, unlike the ignoring of the situation under Clinton. Maybe you should do a little reading.
July 24, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I misunderstood you when you said "adios."
July 24, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible, you are pretty stupid.
July 24, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah. You didn't know that? I'm just as stupid as an unconscious bucket full of ball-peen hammers on heroin.
In fact, I am barely intelligent enough not to try to talk sense to someone who ends an argument by calling me stupid.
July 24, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's go back to McCain's refusal to take the Vietnamese up on their early release offer for a bit. By that time he'd already made propaganda videos for them. If he'd taken early release at the very least he would have been quietly washed out of the Navy when he came back and might have been shunned by the military community, the only life he'd ever known. What little "honor" he had left would be completely gone, replaced by shame.
It may be that shame that drives him in his ironbrained obstinance about Iraq. For him "winning" in Iraq is a do over for Vietnam. It's the same motivation that drives cowards like Bush, Rove and Cheney.
Amnesty after the war wasn't just for dirty hippies who avoided the draft by going to Canada. The military changed it's code of conduct for American POWs. They did away with the rigid "name, rank and serial number" because guys like McCain couldn't be expected to pointlessly withstand torture for revealing what little useful information they had.
His dad told him when he came back "You did the best you could John" and I'm sure he did. The problem is as we're seeing today John's best isn't very good. He was a mediocre pilot, a politician willing to take popular positions in opposition to his party and is a very poor candidate for president.
July 24, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you would have withstood 5.5 years or torture! Ha, more like 5.5 seconds. His skills as a pilot are not relevant, it his experience from being there, risking his life, commanding troops, etc. He was willing to take highly UNPOPULAR positions, like advocating troop increases before anyone else. Obama has always taken the easy route, his choices were wildly popular with his far left constituents.
July 24, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Commanding troops?? What?
July 24, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was commander of the Navy's largest fighter squadron.
July 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
His pilot skills aren't relevant, his finishing 894 out of 899 at the Naval Academy isn't relevant, his admission that he knows little about the economy or the internet isn 't relevant. His butchering of geography, "the border between Iraq and Pakistan", and history, "Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia," aren't relevant.
You know what's relevant? Straight talk, my friends!
July 24, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's a better pilot than Obama. I'm not sure how internet knowledge is relevant, but I doubt Obama knows more than how to surf it, I'm sure he knows nothing about IP, osi stack, ospf routing, etc. It would be nice if McCain knew more about the economy (hopefully his VP will be Romney, that will settle that) but he knows more than Obama and his raise taxes-socialist nonsense. So McCain used the old name for the Czech Republic. At least he knows there are 50 states in the union, not the 60 or so Obama thinks we have.
July 24, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're good for a laugh, if nothing else.
July 24, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's see. Bush lowered taxes for the rich and the economy tanked. Since it was such a lousy idea, let's stick with it for a few more years and really put the economy out of its misery, right? Seems to me Bill Clinton raised taxes and things went pretty well for most folks. For you to flat-out LIE by claiming Obama wants to raise taxes, when in fact he's said over and over that he plans to lower them, is stupid. It might work on some ignorant Republicans, but I think you're one of the only ignorant Republicans currently posting on this site.
July 24, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said he intends to raise cap gains taxes, dividend taxes, eliminate the Bush tax cuts (which means raising the lowest bracket from 10 to 15%), bring back the windfall profits tax, etc. And you say that it is a lie that he wants to raise taxes? Are you paying attention?
July 24, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's not what he's said. This is what he's said:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
And here's a little fact check on the Republican capital gains tax lie:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_raising_the_capital_gains_tax_rate.html
July 24, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I said he was going to raise taxes. You argue that is a lie because he isn't going to raise taxes on everyone, just those bad ones making too much money. He is still talking about raising taxes.
As far as the statement that there is nothing wrong with raising taxes as long as the economy is strong, 2 points. (1) it is right now. (2) if it were, raising taxes is a sure way to make it less strong.
As far as a budget surplus, that was all projected data. Look at the graph of the US debt (not debt v gdp, total debt from treasury web site), you will see that in no year under Clinton did it decline. The rate of increase slowed, but the total debt kept increasing.
July 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That statement is just ridiculously stupid.
July 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
that was a typo, sorry.
it is NOT right now
July 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As is that one. Show me some hard data that proves that raising or lowering taxes has a predictable, repeatable effect on the economy.
July 24, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raise taxes to 100%. Economic activity will cease. Lower taxes to 0%, activity will boom. Every time taxes have been reduced the economy has prospered. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, even Bush knew it. Obama admitted the same thing when he said he would perhaps not raise taxes if the economy were not strong. You yourself in your previous post said taxes should not be raised if the economy were weak. Now you claim taxes have no effect on the economy? That's just nuts.
July 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a completely specious argument, supported by zero facts. Data. Hard data. Otherwise you're just talking out of your butt.
July 24, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is the data from Bush 1, he raised taxes and the economy declined. Clinton raised taxes, same thing. Reagan cut taxes, economy boomed. Bush cut taxes, recession ended. That's enough proof for me, along with the obviously deducible evidence that I provided in my previous post regarding rates of 0 and 100%. I admit that there is likely to be little change from a 1 or 2 % change in either direction. If you want actual data, look it yourself.
July 24, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little more:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006
Look—there's nothing at all wrong with higher taxes as long as the economy is sound and everyone is making enough to pay those taxes. I was paying a fortune during the Clinton years, but I was making a fortune, so I didn't CARE what I was paying. And America had a budget surplus. A budget surplus is not necessarily a good thing, but it's a helluva lot better than what we have now, which is massive debt. Massive, potentially national security threatening, economy destabilizing debt. Currently, the rich are making more money than ever and paying less in taxes. It's a sucker punch for the middle class. The middle class is getting SCREWED. I'm assuming you're rich and that's why you're arguing for more of this bullshit. I used to be rich. Before Bush. Now I'm struggling like everyone else.
July 24, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to George Lakos, a common attitude among Republicans is that they prefer "daddy" figures. They love authoritarianism and see stubbornness as a sign of strength and character. At the time of the surge, Obama's "far left constituents" included nearly 70% of the people living in America. America has had almost eight years of a "daddy" president who has taken unpopular position after unpopular position. We all know where it's taken us.
There's nothing wrong with democracy--it works. You Republicans claim to love democracy, and yet you deify intractable, arrogant, ignorant bullies like Bush and McCain who actually take pride in going against the will of the people. What's wrong with you people? Are your heads made of wood? You just lost the House and Senate because you insisted upon supporting the lousy policies of your idiot president for six and a half years. Now you're about to lose the White House. Do you ever learn from your mistakes?
You HAVE NO CANDIDATE. McCain is a feeble old man. If he happened to get lucky and won the election, he would finish this country off.
Get real. Until the Republican Party has a real conservative again, it's hardly worth being a Republican.
July 24, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bulldog it's irrelevant how much torture I, you or McCain can withstand. The military was right to change their US POW policy regarding it. It's pointless to demand that men let themselves be abused, crippled or murdered withholding what little information frontline troops can divulge. Nonetheless McCain admits to the shame he feels for his cooperation and the US losing the Vietnam War. He's gets very worked up when saying we must not lose in Iraq like we did in Vietnam.
His whole life history is relevant. He's a mediocrity who skated by with the help of family and friends his whole life. Sound familiar? Any other Navy pilot would have washed out before going to Vietnam if he'd crashed two planes and clipped power lines with another as he did. But the son and grandson of admirals. He was a lousy student at Annapolis. He never commanded anything but his Skyhawk until he got back from Vietnam. He never would have been given that training squadron in NJ if he'd taken early release.
He's backed Bush's strategy on Iraq no matter what hairbrained build up, drawdown, counter insurgency, stand them up so we can stand down plan he gave us next. Hell on November 27th McCain told Charlie Rose the South Korea model will never work. He said we have to get our soldiers off the streets of Baghdad and back on our bases and let Iraqis patrol their own neighborhoods. Now according to him that's traitor talk.
He's claimed he called for Bush to fire Rumsfeld. There's video of him the day before Bush did exactly that saying he had no opinion and that decision is the president's.
Look at the issues he broke with Republicans on. Campaign finance reform, immigration, pork, not bankrupting the government with more tax cuts for the rich, right on down the line these are positions popular with voters. Taking them was no risk. It's a big part of the reason they thought he could win indy votes. Republican obstinance on this stuff is also why their prospects are in the toilet. Regardless McCain is in such bad shape with Republican voters he's flip flopped on virtually all of them.
Obama's positions are popular with the majority of voters so I guess the country must be far left in your eyes. A lot of those positions are ones McCain used to hold. Too bad he sold out to get the nomination.
July 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of what you say about McCain is true, he was never my choice. I preferred Romney given the list of possibles. But in you critique of McCain's lack of accomplishments, what actually has Obama done? Went to school, got elected to the statehouse, made a speech, ran for president. That about sums it up.
July 24, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Romney would have been easy pickins. He's a phony, through and through. Face it: the Republicans didn't have a candidate this time around. Every single choice you were given totally sucked. It happens. The cards are stacked against you this time around. But never forget that it was your stubborn support of a completely lousy president that caused this to happen. If Congressional Republicans had opposed Bush when he was wrong (which was most of the time) instead of rubberstamping his stupidity, the situation would be much different right now. I have nothing against true conservatives. But Bush was never a conservative. He was just an idiot. A bumbling fool who cheated his way into the White House. Payback's gonna be a bitch. Bend over and take it like a man.
July 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment