THEY ATTACKED JOHN MCCAIN JUST LIKE JOHN KERRY!
And even though every right winger approved of the Swiftboating of Kerry, they’ve realized the error of their ways right now.
And, of course, this is all because what pissed off Democrats most about the attacks on Kerry were insinuations that his service wasn’t enough by itself to qualify him for the presidency. That was what pissed them off, not the fact that the Swiftboaters fabricated and lied about Kerry’s record.
Of course, Republicans know it isn’t the same thing; here’s our friend Dana getting slippery with his language:
But when it comes to John McCain, the records are there, solid, incontrovertable, with photographs and testimony from the men who were imprisoned with him.
Because Clark said something casting doubt on McCain being imprisoned and tortured?
Oh, wait…he didn’t. Surely our friend Dana Pico wouldn’t be dishonest here, would he? Because WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BELIEVE HIM AGAIN ABOUT ANYTHING.
Ah, but you know how it is. BTW, Barack Obama practically said this himself, even though he disavowed the comments.
Clark stressed that when he initially suggested that McCain’s time in Vietnam did not — by itself — qualify him to be president, he was speaking as his own agent and not on behalf of Barack Obama’s campaign. In addition, he pointed some of the spotlight on the fact that one of McCain’s surrogates in batting back the criticism was Bud Day, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization that McCain once criticized.
McCain hired Bud Day after Bud promised he was sorry about Kerry, of course, because John McCain is very, very honest and consistent.
[youtube ioy90nF2anI]
[youtube GEtZlR3zp4c]
-jb
July 1st, 2008 at 5:15 am
Our esteemed host wrote:
Every right winger? As in all, without exception, not a single dissenter?
As it happens, the strongest Republican defender of Senator Kerry during the “swiftboating” kerfuffle was his Senate colleague, John McCain. And the latest Obama surrogate to go after Mr McCain’s military record, Wesley Clark, said, in October of 2006:
Of course, seeing that it was backfiring, Senator Obama’s campaign — which learned a great deal from the Hillary Clinton campaign about sending out surrogates to do the dirty work and then denying any responsibility for it — denounced General Clark’s words.
But, perhaps you wish to take General Clark’s words as valid, despite the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has denounced them. Mr Clark said,
A curious argument there, given that commanding a large squadron in the Navy is still more executive responsibility than Mr Obama has ever had. By General Clark’s own stated criteria, Mr McCain is more qualified to be president than Mr Obama. No wonder the junior senator from Illinois disavowed those words!
If the Obama campaign is supposedly winning, and winning big, why do their actions smack so much of desperation?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Spin, spin, spin, Jeromy. Don’t you get dizzy?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am
I see the kettle has arrived to call out the pot
July 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Sharon: You’re a joke.
Dana: Yep, McCain defended Kerry at the time…against disgraceful slurs and fabrications about his record. But now he’s hired a Swiftboater, so…?
Otherwise, I’m glad to see you unable to present any evidence of disrespect or distortion of McCain’s service. Of course, you feel free to criticize Clark’s record and how it relates to his abilities, but don’t explain why McCain shouldn’t be held to the same standard. And you’re free to point out that McCain’s service is still a plus that Obama doesn’t have. Clark didn’t try to suggest that Obama had the advantage there either. It was a simple point, and you guys just can’t help yourselves but fall out of your chairs screaming and crying and trying to play victim. That’s what it means to be a Republican today, you’re all perpetual victims while you simultaneously talk about how tough you are.
Now, were you going to address your little bit of slipperiness there, Dana, because I’m not sure I can ever believe a word you say again. Well, I really don’t because anybody who sits around wishing Dick Cheney were running, well…yeah. But it’s comical to note you constantly being such a trickster when you were so gravely mortified about Obama saying one thing and doing…pretty much the same thing.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Correction: There is a slightly detectable hint of rudeness in Clark’s statement, although he was only reflecting Bob Schieffer’s question:
While professional GOP victims have their fans a-fluttering, Clark hasn’t said anything that McCain hasn’t said about himself, except to add that McCain doesn’t have executive experience.
So?
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 am
Running a squadron as McCain did is significant executive experience. What does Obama have that matches?
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
I’ll take “Community Organizing on the south side” for 500, Alex
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Hmmm.
“Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama–and hundreds of other organizers–did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. But it did change the young man who became the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, and it provides clues to his worldview as he bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.”
Well, he can work on a team, at least. But some things don’t scale up well – and he didn’t seem terribly successful at community organization. But he tried – and I’ll sure give him points for that.
Thanks, Thomas!
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Jlawson: Again, think clearly here. The conversation was Bob Schieffer saying precisely that to Wesley Clark, that Barack Obama doesn’t have the military experience that McCain does. Clark’s answer wasn’t that Obama somehow had something that automatically trumped McCain’s experience. It was that McCain’s experience wasn’t enough by itself to say he’s qualified to be president.
It means simply that there’s a lot more to consider here. Yes, Obama has never been captured and tortured for 5 years, but that’s hardly a requirement itself. Nobody can deny that McCain gets bonus points for enduring the unimaginable for so long, but it’s his policies and vision that ultimately qualify him or not.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
JLawson/Dana/et al:
Well being a coke-fiend and a total fuckup and inept businessman, were enough to get your Dubya in office for 8 years.
Who gives a rat’s ass about military background.
This isn’t Latin America or South Asia.
Having lived in both of those areas, having a military background gives you one thing FASCISM. But then again, we can expect no less from Right-wingers.
Ali
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Jeromy -
McCain’s POW time isn’t terribly relevant as far as I’m concerned, though I do believe it shows signficant determination, endurance, and fortitude, as well as great concern for the men he was with. It was what he did afterward that was impressive. He could have opted for medical disability retirement – but didn’t. From the wiki – “and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida. He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.” The mid-late ’70s were a shitty time to be in the military (he said, from personal experience…) and that he could do that, at that time, is pretty impressive to me. (It takes quite a bit for to qualify for a Meritorious Unit Commendation.)
The position of President isn’t simply that of a charismatic figurehead. The President also has to guide the country through the tangled times we live in. I’m not impressed with Obama’s ideas on energy or the economy – though I think he’s going to do a 180 in the ‘no drill’ routine in the next couple of weeks – I really think he believes that government intervention is the answer to all our problems… and I think we can (and should) handle the problems we can on a local or state level without looking for the government to bail us out. We get too dependent on government, and we end up forgetting how to do things for ourselves…
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Man, when Republicans run entirely out of gas, they pull out the “We need to stop relying on the government to solve our problems!” platitudes. Seems like a primal reaction, attempting to return to the semi-libertarian ideological binky that got them hopped up on the GOP in the first place.
The problem is, we’ve seen what really happens when the GOP runs things. The ideological claptrap turns into a recipe for incompetent government, ballooning deficits, and the steady destruction of the middle class.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
We get too dependent on government, and we end up forgetting how to do things for ourselves…
Republicans only care about shit like this when they want to carry on with the “welfare queens driving Cadillacs” type of lecture.
Wall Street gets bailed out it’s a wise and prudent move. No bid contracts get handed out to favored private companies and it’s a matter of national security. Sally down the street gets a book of food stamps and it’s the destruction of our society.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Shrug.
Look, I don’t like the way things inflated in the last 8 years myself. Seems like the only way either party thinks it can get votes is by promising more and more, and hang the expense either long or short term. My only consolation is that it’s worse under a Democratic House and Senate and a Democratic President. And Jeromy – you think government’s incompetent under the Republicans? The Carter years were a LOT worse. Or does 15% mortage rates and 11% unemployment sound like a good deal to you? (I’ll give Clinton this much – his foriegn policies were shit, but he kept his fingers pretty much out of the economy. Carter couldn’t resist meddling.)
I’m no libertarian, either – been around enough of them to realize if you want three different points of view, just get two libertarians together and let them talk for ten minutes.
I’ve got no problem w/food stamps, Nate, used them myself (once – and not again… I’ll live on ramen, oatmeal and vitamins if I’ve got to, and have) many years back – but I want to see a means test put in place so you don’t get them if you don’t have a real NEED for them. That money being given out came from you, it came from me – and you want to see it wasted?
Like the stimulus check you got? That money came from you in the first place. So, for your $600 or so – the government first had to take a LARGER amount (for shipping, handling, and carrying charges) then process it through the bureaucracy and finally get delivered to you. My estimate is that it was probably $730-750 before it got worn down in transit.
So why couldn’t they just let you keep the money in the first place? Ah, there’s the question, isn’t it? The assumption seems to be that government ALWAYS knows better than YOU what the money should be spent on. (Oh, by the way, I’m a Fair Tax supporter.)
So if you’re looking to label me as a Republican – go right ahead. I don’t really care. I vote for who I consider the best qualified candidate, no matter the party. I will, if need be, vote for the least objectionable one if I can’t find a well-qualified one. I research the candidates, I research their stands on the issues that concern me. What concerns you might not concern me – so if you say I should vote for X party or Y party’s candidate, I’ll just shrug. Party affiliation is MUCH less important to me than the ideas, and how the person’s record shows what they profess to believe.
I try hard not to let the media influence me, because I’ve learned over the years that they’re not looking to put out the whole story, or the context behind the story – they’re looking for ratings… and more importantly over the last decade or so, they’re tuning their coverage to maximize that. It’s viewers they’re after, and actual information transfer is irrelevant.
(For example – have you noticed there’s very little news about Iraq these days? Did you catch the “15 of 18 Benchmarks Accomplished” headlines? No? How about the Christie Brinkley divorce, and how her husband had a $3k/month p0rn habit? Or the salmonella problem with tomatoes? Or the 62k jobs lost in June? Bet you heard about those…)
Anyway… I’ve voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I won’t vote for Greens, they’re two steps away from Luddites, and I happen to like electricity, hot water, modern medicine and a technologically based civilization, thankyouverymuch… Nader? The guy gets off every 4 years by a masturbative run for the White House. Sucks to be him, but that won’t earn my vote.
Abortion? Should be legal. Gay marriage? Same – but if you decide you can’t stand each other after a year or two, then go through a standard divorce. (That’s for my friend the lawyer. Think of it – doubling the business! Woo-hoo!) Equal opportunity? Yep. Preferential treatment because of skin color? Nope. Gun rights? Yep. Gun control? Nope.
That give you enough to go on? My opinons are based on observation over the years of what was thought to work, and what did and didn’t. Simply because it seems like a good idea isn’t sufficient. The folks in the 20′s thought Prohibition would be a good idea, and look how well THAT turned out.
This is getting too long. But just one more thing…
Nate – re the ‘no-bid contracts’… the lead time for a government contract purchase is almost laughable. The procurement system is really and truely a bureacratic nightmare. The government first puts out a Request for Purchase. There’s a minimum time by law that has to be out. Then companies have to draw up proposals and submit them. The agency requesting the particular item will examine the proposals and make a decision. THEN the company has to wait while the money’s approved and payment is made. The whole process can be derailed if a company that loses the bid contests the results. If it’s for services – say, computer support for an agency like the CDC – the whole process can drag out over a year and a half before the final determination can be made.
So… what does the government do if it needs something FAST? When the need is immediate – in a week, in a month, not a year and a half?
A listing is maintained of companies that have proven able to do what needs to be done – whether it’s logistics support or oil-well extinguishing – and an approximation of the costs that will be charged. But when you very badly need something done right, and FAST, you’re not going to worry too much about the cost. (There’s an old joke about a sign on a garage wall – “I can do the job cheap, fast, or right. Cheap and right won’t be fast. Cheap and fast won’t be right. Fast and right won’t be cheap. Pick any two.”)
A no-bid contract is put out when the government needs it fast and right. Halliburton’s a common example – they do oilfield construction and maintenance, and their subsidiary KBR has a pretty much unmatched logistics and sustainment capability, also the ability to build up bases at the end of a long supply chain if need be.
We don’t have that capability in the US military any more. It was mostly outsourced in the early ’90s, because it was found to be cheaper to pay civilian companies to move stuff and feed the troops.
Smart move? I couldn’t say.
Ah, enough for tonight. Pay attention to context. Goodnight, folks!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Um, so maybe get over Carter because that was 30 years ago…or explain exactly how he managed to do so much bad in 4 years in a sea of Republican presidencies.
With Carter it’s always, “Oh, those were bad years!” The Bush economy is guaranteed to leave real marks on our lives 30 years from now. It won’t be nostalgia about the bad ole’ days, we’ll still be trying to fix what went wrong.
Like Nate said, it’s improbable that you could find the antidote to the ills you perceive in the GOP. Responsibility for our own lives? They can’t wait to tell you what to do with your life. I’m far more comfortable with economic regulation than I am personal/moral regulation.
I’m just saying that if you think McCain’s going to teach America to pull itself up by its bootstraps, you’re kidding yourself.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:01 am
As I said, Jeromy, context is important. Carter inherited an economy that wasn’t doing badly (and ours isn’t, right now. It ain’t really good, but it’s not really bad…) and ran it into the ground through an increased reliance on government intervention and control.
So you think Obama will be ‘different’? A junior senator, beholding to the Chicago political machine, who’s already contorting himself to backtrack on Iraq, abortion, and (soon, in my opinon) energy?
He’s a weathervane.
“Responsibility for our own lives? They can’t wait to tell you what to do with your life.”
Says who? On what?
Tell it to the environmental lobby the Democrats are in bed with. They’ve gone from “NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) to BAN (Build Absolutely Nothing.) As I said, I’m fond of modern life and this electricity stuff, and they don’t want it.
Or perhaps I shouldn’t use as an example the ‘progressives’ on campus who’ve made any expression of ideas other than what THEY think appropriate pretty much a thought crime? Are you saying they aren’t really trying to tell people what they can say and think? And do?
Or are you channelling the ‘Moral Majority’ from the ’80s, who most people basically ignored? They were entertaining, but that was about it. As a political force, they’re long gone.
The Democrats are far more about control now than the Republicans are. Mandate this, mandate that – the Dems are also the ONLY ones calling for a draft for the military, have you noticed? And did you miss the recent call by Obama for mandatory public service?
Isn’t it an interesting time we’re in?
Have a good day, man! Catch you later…
July 4th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Um, so maybe get over Carter because that was 30 years ago…or explain exactly how he managed to do so much bad in 4 years in a sea of Republican presidencies.
God, what year were you born, Jeromy? 1974? Can you honestly say you remember the misery index while you were playing with your Hot Wheels?
All sneering aside, you don’t know what you’re talking about with the “that was 30 years ago!” crap. Bill Clinton succeeded because a Republican Congress forced him to the center and triangulate his way through his presidency. He was also helped by the tech bubble and the expansion of the information age.
Most of your life, you’ve lived with Republican presidents, so you don’t have a lot of experience under Democrats. I’m not Methuselah, but I’m old enough to remember crushing inflation and respectable people angered because they couldn’t afford a chicken that someone with food stamps came along after them and bought. Those experiences changed a generation of people into Republicans, Jeromy, because they were angry that they were getting shafted because they worked hard and didn’t rely on government services.
You can sneer all you want about how Republicans always go back to that meme. And to some extent, you’re right. Lots of Republicans didn’t vote for R’s in 2006 because they were disgusted by the profligate spending of a Republican-controlled Congress. But, believe me, we’re not excited at the prospect of St. Obama taxing the hell out of everybody he deems unworthy to keep their own money.
And do you really want to stick with the “I’ll take econ9omic controls over religious/moral ones” argument? Obama stated just the other day that he wanted to mandate community service for high schoolers and college students to graduate. And only certain types of service qualify. Sounds a lot like a draft, to me. You don’t consider that to be a moral control?
Let’s face it, Jeromy. You rail against Republican politicians because for most of your life, that’s all you’ve had. You aren’t old enough to have watched all those “This dinner only cost 28 cents a serving!” ads that ran in the 1970s. It’s understandable, but it’s tunnel vision, as well. The truth is that no political party wants to constrain only economic or only moral behavior. They have different approaches to different problems. But Republicans tend to think your problems are your own to solve and Democrats think everybody else should pay for someone to solve them for you.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
1973, thanks. But vague anecdotes about 28 cent servings and GOP buzzwords like, “REMEMBER THE MISERY INDEX!” don’t really serve to answer my question.
Six years of the 70′s had a Republican president.
And your boy Bush, with full cooperation from all you monkeys, has fucked up things so badly that nobody can buy this horseshit anymore (‘cept the hardcore dittoheads like you).
So instead of telling us that Democrats can never lead again because of one one-term president 30 years ago, and ignoring everything I said to go on a pre-manufactured Townhall rant, and trying to pretend Obama is going to tax us into poverty when McCain offers the most ruinous unaccountable fiscal package, why don’t you do everything you can to develop the ability to answer a question directly for once?
July 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Carter inherited an economy that wasn’t doing badly (and ours isn’t, right now. It ain’t really good, but it’s not really bad…) and ran it into the ground through an increased reliance on government intervention and control.
Lawson, in all of the posts that I’ve read of yours on here you don’t do much more than come back and keep insisting that you’re correct by recycling sacred GOP bullet-points.
Conveniently left out of your rambling posts is any type of background about the crippling effects of the energy embargoes of the 70′s and the effects they had on the economy, and reflexively, the Carter administration. Carter’s first energy package deregulated oil and gas energy prices, this coupled with winning his route for the Alaskan oil pipeline enabled Alaskan crude to provide a hedge against OPEC shenanigans that had caused widespread market volatility during the previous decade.
And to say that the economy that Carter inherited “wasn’t doing badly” is pure comedy. Inflation was at twelve-fucking-percent in 1974, the Dow had lost thirty percent of it’s value since 1968 and employment was accelerating toward eight percent. What was so rosy about the Nixon economy? Remember, it was Nixon that tried to regulate oil and gas prices and impose wage-price controls so this canned “Republicans = free markets – Democrats = regulation” speech doesn’t hold up against history.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
jeromy> that’s the underlying point of my last comment though I didn’t come right out and say it. Dittoheads are more than happy to let Carter take the blame for economic factors that were a result of externalities outside of his control and they’re willing to rewrite history to do it.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
And being one month away from 35, I find it amusing to be subjected to “you young whippersnapper!” arguments.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Mike G-
Recycling GOP points is a bad thing? LOL.
How is that different from recycling sacred Democratic talking points?
Of course, it all depends on how much ‘reality’ is inherent in them, does it not? And which party you’ve signed on to?
Re history – Nixon was in moderate shit in ’73, passed things to Ford in ’74. Inflation was going up – Carter took what he got in ’76 and totally buggered it. He DID authorize the Alaska pipeline – but that was before the environmental lobby took over the Democratic Party. You think such a thing would be possible now? Look at the screaming over ANWR – tell me what you think the chances of something like the Alaska pipeline being passed today are like.
As far as governmental controls go – how is a Democrat imposing controls different than a Republican President imposing controls? You’re still imposing controls.
As far as the economy goes, I had a friend in ’79 who was getting a condo – and thought she was doing damn good to get a 19% loan.
19%. Good god.
Mike G – “Dittoheads are more than happy to let Carter take the blame for economic factors that were a result of externalities outside of his control and they’re willing to rewrite history to do it.”
Let’s rewrite that, shall we, and update it a bit? And please – I realize it’s very easy and convenient to label your opponent, that way you can discount whatever they say as being just “Dittohead shit”. But I long ago got over the “My party good, other party evil” stuff. And I got tired of Limbaugh a good decade ago.
So…
“Democrats are more than happy to let BUSH take the blame for economic factors that were a result of externalities outside of his control and they’re willing to rewrite history to do it.”
Accurate, or inaccurate?
Political arguments tend to revolve around key words, sound bites and canned scripts. It’s very easy to look at the stuff on the surface and swallow it whole, especially if it fits what you’ve been told, your friends are thinking, and it’s want to believe. It’s a lot harder to look deeper into the facts BEHIND the scripts – which is why I was saying that context matters.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Jeromy -
I’m 52. Sigh. Sure wish I were 35 again!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
JLawson: Ah, but Bush’s policies have directly impacted the economy, and every record of history outside of Conservapedia will note thus.
You are aware of a little boondoggle known as the Iraq War, right?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Oh, quite aware of it.
Have you read “War and Decision”? Or are you going to simply go with prevalent sound bites and slogans? There was a lot of complex reasoning going on behind the decision to do what was done. History will indeed judge Bush – but I don’t think the results will be what you (or I, for that matter) may think.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Anyway, enjoy your Fourth, everyone!
July 4th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Re history – Nixon was in moderate shit in ‘73, passed things to Ford in ‘74. Inflation was going up – Carter took what he got in ‘76 and totally buggered it. He DID authorize the Alaska pipeline – but that was before the environmental lobby took over the Democratic Party. You think such a thing would be possible now? Look at the screaming over ANWR – tell me what you think the chances of something like the Alaska pipeline being passed today are like.
Again, I don’t see a lot of red meat here besides more anecdotes and insistence. You have yet to explain how run-away inflation and energy prices were the result of Carter policies encouraging “increased reliance on government intervention and control”.
You think such a thing would be possible now? Look at the screaming over ANWR – tell me what you think the chances of something like the Alaska pipeline being passed today are like.
Once people get a taste of the type of stagflation that’s heading right for us in the coming years they’ll change their tune real quick. Nixon’s gas rationing (btw, that’s a price control, Lawson) woke people up to how much their “modern” lives are a product of cheap and predictable energy. North Slope and North Sea oil put us back to sleep for the next thirty years, pretending that the United States runs on Lee Greenwood, Busch Light and apple pie. Now we’re right back to where we started; a foreign war, regardless of what premise folks believe it was started for, is draining our coffers and our currency is rapidly losing value (ie – oil buying power. Just as an aside, how come people who bitch about gas prices never talk about this aspect? Devaluation coupled with supply constraints are the primary contributing factors to high energy prices and they’re the least cited).
July 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
…and this time around we don’t have any “spare capacity” we can fall back on to save us. At least in the 70′s we had a functioning middle class, transportation infrastructure and communities that weren’t completely car reliant, some domestic petroleum supplies left and ample time to make preparations. Now we’re stuck with this:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200807/NAT20080703a.html
July 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am
[...] that Senator John McCain’s service in Vietnam doesn’t qualify him to be president. While our friends on the left tried to parse Mr Clark’s words to say, “But they’re true, they’re true!” I noted that if you have to [...]