Water under the bridge now, but...

[fifty5]

but can you folks over there in the US explain a couple of things to me, please?

First:

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/23/128666749475664076.jpg

I didn't follow the rationale why being such an ineffective soldier that, first he got taken prisoner, then spent most of the war as a POW without escaping was supposed to endear this guy to voters?

Second, essentially the same question about being, "a maverick"...

I mean, that's rebellion against the status quo, isn't it, but wasn't he standing as a conservative rather than a radical?

I mean, from this side of the pond, it looks as if you could concatenate these two as, "I'm an ineffectual prat, who doesn't understand what I'm here for ... so vote for me!"

If you roll in choosing a running mate who denies the scientific process (I mean, she does use aircraft, doesn't she - developed by the same evidence-based process that generated the principles of evolution) all that looks to me as if this pair should have been laughed out of court by anyone bright enough to read a comic book.

Granted, "the bright one" did win, but apparently a lot of US citizens took them seriously.

Can anyone explain this mystery to me?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

He was a pilot who was taken prisoner in enemy territory after being shot down. He did try to escape repeatedly and was tortured extensively for his attempts. His attempts to escape and his encouragement of his fellow POW's resistance caused him to be heavily decorated.

And during his years in the Senate, he clashed repeatedly with the party leadership.

Better?

 

[fifty5]

He was a pilot who was taken prisoner in enemy territory after being shot down. He did try to escape repeatedly and was tortured extensively for his attempts. His attempts to escape and his encouragement of fellow POW's were the cause of his being heavily decorated.

Better?

That makes a lot more sense, so why didn't it come across that way?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That makes a lot more sense, so why didn't it come across that way?

Dunno. The Viet Nam generation definitely remembers.

 

[DesertPirate]

That makes a lot more sense, so why didn't it come across that way?

One of the things those animals did was tie his arms behind his back ans then raise him by his hands on a pulley with rope. The damage to his shoulders is so bad he can't lift his arms above his shoulders today.

The story has been out for years, you must have missed it. He flew A-4 Skyhawks off the USS Intrepid and was shot down over North Vietnam. He got extra punishment when he refused an early release because his Dad was Comander in Chief Pacific, a 4 star Admiral.

 

[sr71plt]

Possibly even better on the Vietnam captivity: He was identified as the son of a U.S. naval admiral and the North Vietnamese offered to release him as a propaganda ploy and he refused to cooperate with them. (While occasionally attempting to escape, he refused a tainted walk out of the front door.) Those imprisoned with him also identified him as a leader of morale while in prison. (As a pilot in Vietnam briefly myself, I also question the circumstances of being shot down, especially since he was known as a arrogant hot shot--but his imprisonment story has all of the credentials of a true war hero in a war where, in subsequent decades, Americans came to believe that they had given short shrift to those who fought in Vietnam.)

As far as the maverick issues, to be fair to McCain, he has been an odd-man-out on a lot of public spending issues, where he's been open and persistent about questionable spending by Congress. He has been vocally "common sense/no nonsense" about several other issues. He strongly (until he started going meally mouthed during the campaign) opposed administration torture practices at Guantomino (when all of the other Republicans were putting their heads under their desks on the issue).

Since virtually everyone in this election was running against (and from) the Republic administration, McCain, as a recognized mavarick in his party, stood the best chance of the possibilities of separating himself from the current administration.

 

[fifty5]

The story has been out for years, you must have missed it.

Maybe it's the fault of the UK media, but this stuff didn't cross the pond effectively enough to have any impact on me during the campaign.

Even so, it still sounds like an (effective) argument for why he was standing for the anti-war left - when he wasn't.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Maybe it's the fault of the UK media, but this stuff didn't cross the pond effectively enough to have any impact on me during the campaign.

Even so, it still sounds like an (effective) argument for why he was standing for the anti-war left - when he wasn't.

the Beeb, from what I can see from this side of the pond, doesn't have a lot of admiration for things military . . . unless they're princes Royal.

 

[Dragonlipz]

You ask good questions

and deserve good answers:

(I am a veteran of the Viet Nam conflict, which only puts me at a place in time, does not bestow any wisdom or insight)

John McCain is the son of an full admiral of the US Navy who was also the son of an admiral. This is a family of warriors, from a culture of warriors.

I plan to write a book about my great uncle Joe - Italiano warrior who fought the Facists but more about that later.

John McCain was shot down over North Viet Nam while he was attacking military targets. I was told that the objectives that we targeted were 'military targets'. The truth is he knew as little about why he was there and what he was fighting for as any of us did.
If you weren't terrifed, stoned, or trembling in fear then you probably were dead. It was war:
as ugly and filthy a business that man can inflict on his brother. There is no glory, no honor, merely the quick and the dead - with apologies to Norman Mailer......

 

[cloudy]

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but...

1) For some reason, there are quite a few people in the U.S. that believe that being a veteran grants some kind of special status. I've seen it demonstrated by Severusmax here in the AH - it's surreal, as if everything else a person has ever done in their life doesn't matter. We're supposed to automatically bow down and give our respect to a veteran, whether they deserve that respect or not. And if that veteran was also a POW, then he is granted superhero status.

Don't get me wrong, serving in the military is an honorable thing, but it doesn't supersede their character, or in McCain's case, supersede the fact that he behaved like a spoiled brat during his stint in the military, getting himself into problem after problem that his daddy continually bought him out of.

2) His "maverick" label was one he used to show that he was somehow different from the Republicans in power under W - supposedly. Truth is, he voted with Bush 90% of the time - clearly not even close to a maverick.

Republicans have a long history of manipulating working class voters into voting against their own best interests.

From this article:

For years, many of the elite conservatives were happy to harvest the votes of devout Christians and gun owners by waging a phony class war against “liberal elitists” and “leftist intellectuals.”

Now a hot issue is illegal immigration, and they're pouncing on that, making people believe that they're going to lose their jobs to immigrants if they don't elect Republicans - fearmongering at it's worst.

flame away.

 

[fifty5]

the Beeb, from what I can see from this side of the pond, doesn't have a lot of admiration for things military . . . unless they're princes Royal.

While agreeing with your cynicism about Princes, I'm from the M*A*S*H generation and sympathise with the apparent position of the BEEB on that.

I do accept that Hitler had to be fought, but like to kid myself that war is essentially evil - something to keep as the last, worst hope for any individual nation.

 

[sr71plt]

2) His "maverick" label was one he used to show that he was somehow different from the Republicans in power under W - supposedly. Truth is, he voted with Bush 90% of the time - clearly not even close to a maverick.

I'd sort of like to see a rundown of that voting history--and I'm a little surprised the McCain campaign didn't do some toying with it (although a "maybe" on that later). Truth be known, most congressional votes are extremely mundane. I'll bet most of the Democrats voted with what the administration proposed a good 70 percent of the time as well.

I'd like to know more about that 10 percent where McCain digressed from the the administration program. My impression is that McCain balked at quite a bit of the administration program in high-attention areas. He was certainly written up as not being counted on to follow the party line (which would, I think, have come back to bite him hard in his congressional relations if he had won the White House). He certainly gave the administration grief on the running of the Iraq war during its initial years and was also embarrassing them on questionable items in spending bills.

But it could be that the McCain campaign didn't bring it up because then there would be some sort of comparison of total votes to the votes he actually showed up for. I don't believe he's had a very good record there (not that Senators show up for a big percentage of the votes on average anyway).

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'd sort of like to see a rundown of that voting history--and I'm a little surprised the McCain campaign didn't do some toying with it (although a "maybe" on that later). Truth be known, most congressional votes are extremely mundane. I'll bet most of the Democrats voted with what the administration proposed a good 70 percent of the time as well.

I'd like to know more about that 10 percent where McCain digressed from the the administration program. My impression is that McCain balked at quite a bit of the administration program in high-attention areas. He was certainly written up as not being counted on to follow the party line (which would, I think, have come back to bite him hard in his congressional relations if he had won the White House). He certainly gave the administration grief on the running of the Iraq war during its initial years and was also embarrassing them on questionable items in spending bills.

But it could be that the McCain campaign didn't bring it up because then there would be some sort of comparison of total votes to the votes he actually showed up for. I don't believe he's had a very good record there (not that Senators show up for a big percentage of the votes on average anyway).

If you want to know how John McCain voted, it is a matter of public record:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

 

[sr71plt]

If you want to know how John McCain voted, it is a matter of public record:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

If I was interested enough to spend the time to check it out, then I wouldn't have the time to spend here with you.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but...

1) For some reason, there are quite a few people in the U.S. that believe that being a veteran grants some kind of special status. I've seen it demonstrated by Severusmax here in the AH - it's surreal, as if everything else a person has ever done in their life doesn't matter. We're supposed to automatically bow down and give our respect to a veteran, whether they deserve that respect or not. And if that veteran was also a POW, then he is granted superhero status.

Don't get me wrong, serving in the military is an honorable thing, but it doesn't supersede their character, or in McCain's case, supersede the fact that he behaved like a spoiled brat during his stint in the military, getting himself into problem after problem that his daddy continually bought him out of.

I'm technically a veteran myself, although I served at a time when the US wasn't engaged in any hotspot activity (not publicly, anyway). Since leaving the military, I've encountered numerous older vets, most from the Vietnam era, who seem to carry over a sense of angst which resulted from their less than thankful homecoming. I'd never discount their sense of outrage at returning to a country in which many of its citizens hated or denounced them.

However, in McCain's case, I've always seen a grown man who hated the acquiescence he gave to his captors, and has been wearing a world-size chip on his shoulder ever since. Pride is a very powerful and difficult thing to overcome. Had he been elected, I'm fairly certain he would have focused more on his role as Commander-in-Chief and less as President.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
If you want to know how John McCain voted, it is a matter of public record:

If I was interested enough to spend the time to check it out, then I wouldn't have the time to spend here with you.

Okay, but you did express curiosity:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt
I'd sort of like to see a rundown of that voting history--and I'm a little surprised the McCain campaign didn't do some toying with it (although a "maybe" on that later). Truth be known, most congressional votes are extremely mundane. I'll bet most of the Democrats voted with what the administration proposed a good 70 percent of the time as well.

I'd like to know more about that 10 percent where McCain digressed from the the administration program. My impression is that McCain balked at quite a bit of the administration program in high-attention areas. He was certainly written up as not being counted on to follow the party line (which would, I think, have come back to bite him hard in his congressional relations if he had won the White House). He certainly gave the administration grief on the running of the Iraq war during its initial years and was also embarrassing them on questionable items in spending bills.

But it could be that the McCain campaign didn't bring it up because then there would be some sort of comparison of total votes to the votes he actually showed up for. I don't believe he's had a very good record there (not that Senators show up for a big percentage of the votes on average anyway).

 

[DeeZire]

I think McCain stayed away from his voting record because it would have reminded people that he voted for the Iraq war - something that Obama was wise enough to vote against.

 

[sr71plt]

I think McCain stayed away from his voting record because it would have reminded people that he voted for the Iraq war - something that Obama was wise enough to vote against.

I don't hold much with this--and I also think Hillary rolled over for it more than she should have. When the Iraq war votes were taken, Obama was a nobody nationally. He didn't have anything to lose by voting against it. Hillary was the U.S. Senator from the Twin Towers state. She had to vote for attacking someone. If she'd been clever about it, she might have said then that they had the wrong target, but just about everyone was hoodwinked by the administration on that and, at the time, the mood of the nation was to do something right now with rockets. McCain was in about the same straightjacket. The fact is, though, that McCain started making objections to the war objectives and the way it was being fought before either Obama (who did nothing more, really, than making a safe vote) or Hillary did. If anyone deserved applause for war objection and bravery in standing off against the administration, it was McCain--right up to the time when he and Lieberman moved to the silly notion that the U.S. couldn't be in any war it didn't win, even if the war was the wrong one, and started saying the war just needed to be fought better (and given that position, McCain actually was instrumental in getting Rumsfeld ousted and the war fought better).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KUH LOUD EEEEE

Youre off the reservation old girl.

America reveres the Indian, Confederates, Revolutionaries, and other soldiers because of their military service.

Two experiences lift the fog and allow you to see The Great Beyond: The death of a child and combat. These events crystallize tons of bullshit into a simple creed...outside of death, whatever else happens is an inconvenience.

Men who've experienced combat arent eager to inflict it on others.

 

[Guest]

If I was interested enough to spend the time to check it out, then I wouldn't have the time to spend here with you.

Um. Coffee spew.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

He was a pilot who was taken prisoner in enemy territory after being shot down. He did try to escape repeatedly and was tortured extensively for his attempts. His attempts to escape and his encouragement of his fellow POW's resistance caused him to be heavily decorated.

And during his years in the Senate, he clashed repeatedly with the party leadership.

Better?

He clashed so hard with his party leadership that he voted Bush's way 90% of the time.

So yeah, he clashed. But then he caved in like a Chinese coal mine.

Granted, the Democrats usually stuck together, too, but McCain called himself the Maverick...

 

[Liar]

He clashed so hard with his party leadership that he voted Bush's way 90% of the time.

As has already been pointed out in this thread:

Nice talking point. But is it relevant? What does it mean? Does senators usually vote against their party line more? Or less? Which issues made up the 10% dissent?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

As has already been pointed out in this thread:

Nice talking point. But is it relevant? What does it mean? Does senators usually vote against their party line more? Or less? Which issues made up the 10% dissent?

It is relevant when you say you're a Maverick.

When you say you're a Maverick and yet you tow the party line 90% of the time, there's a contradiction. I mean, really, you can try to spin that, but it is what it is. Going with Bush 90% of the time is not going against Bush. What does it mean? I know what it doesn't mean - it does NOT mean one is being a Maverick.

Now Democrats probably do the same thing, but they're not the ones claiming to be Mavericks.

Obama wasn't claiming to be a Maverick when he promised "Change"[tm]. Change, from his perspective, is Diverging From Dubya's Policies[tm] and if he votes 100% with the Democrats, he still qualifies as Change[tm]. Classically, no less.

 

[fifty5]

Thanks for all that input everyone.

It's become clear that my perception was ill-founded, due to very different perspectives and situations here (UK) and there (US).

I'm starting to understand a bit better now, but it still feels weird.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Thanks for all that input everyone.

It's become clear that my perception was ill-founded, due to very different perspectives and situations here and there.

I'm starting to understand a bit better now, but it still feels weird.

Your perception was just fine.

Just step back and give thanks silently that McCain and Palin wouldn't even come close to being accepted as leaders anywhere in the world except the US... and thank goodness they only came close.