Sunday, April 20, 2008

A noun a verb and the Hanoi Hilton

John McCain was on This Week with George Stephanapoulos today and further convinced me that whatever integrity he may have once had is gone.
When asked about Elizabeth Edwards' criticism of him on health care, which included the point that he has had his health care tab picked up by the U.S. government his entire life, McCain said:
It’s a cheap shot, but I did have a period of time where I didn’t have very good government health care. I had it from another government. (LAUGHTER)

This is ridiculous. Not normal ridiculous, either. It's up to Giuliani levels of ridiculousness. Driftglass is spot-on in his characterization of the remark as
...all but saying that government-run health care sucks because...uh...I was tortured by the North Vietnamese 40 years ago.

My friend. hehehe.
We get it. he was a POW. That doesn't mean his health care (non)plan or his Bush III economic policy will be good things for the country.

In fact, it means very little at all, other than that John McCain suffered bravely and excessively in a war we shouldn't have been in.

The fact that he's so gung ho to keep putting more men and women in the same situation shows that for all of his bravery, he lacks a more important qualifying trait: Judgment. That lack of judgment shows in his domestic proposals as well.

What McCain doesn't lack is a cynical willingness to inject the fact of his having been tortured into every discussion of every issue for which he's being criticized.

Except, of course, the one issue where it could do some good.

See the This Week segment here at crooks and liars.

10 comments:

Brendan said...

I'm with you, you'll be unamazed to hear, in being thoroughly sick of this aspect of McCain's image and campaign.

I think what we need to do is to come up with some clever way of equating "POW" with "pow;" i.e., his kneejerk instinct to bomb.

Blogonaut said...

I think McCain's comment was intended as humor, and not a comparison of health care in the US vs. the Viet Cong.

Have you Obama supporters completely lost your sense of humor?

Granted, HRC is winning by double digits in PA, but Obama is still GUARENTEED the nomination, RIGHT?

jiminy jilliker said...

Of course it was intended as humor-it just happened to be a particularly lame attempt at it.

My point was that it had the Giuliani-esque effect of shoehorning a mention of torture into a totally ill-fitting exchange.

And if I may make an observation, Blogonaut, for someone who claims to be a Democrat, you seem to do a lot of shilling for the Republicans. Here, you're sticking up for McCain, in a post I commented on @ your place the other day, you cited RedState.com and Fox News approvingly. You must realize that no matter who you support in the Democratic race, these sources and McCain are not friendly to Democrats or Democrats' preferred approach to important issues.

Hell, look around this blog. While it's unapologetically pro-Obama, I have consistently stated that in November, I will vote for whomever winds up as the Democratic nominee.

I REALLY hope it's not Clinton, but because my support for Obama and my engagement in the process is based on a sincere desire to drag the political pendulum back from the extreme right, and not on some blind factionalism or unreasoning hatred, I'm not going to lose sight of who the real opponents are.

You'd do well to attempt the same thing.

And thanks for reading.

Blogonaut said...

Dear Jiminy:

When I cite a news source on my blog it is neither with "approval" or "disapproval".

Nor am I "schilling" for any group.

I am just expressing my own views.

I grow increasingly concerned each day about whom Obama really is.

We don't know a lot about him because he destroyed or failed to archive any of his papers as a state legislator in Chicago.

What we are finding out are glimpses, but are not good from where I sit.

I don’t not want a first lady in the White House whose pride in America is new found with her husband's presidential campaign and who appears to be bitter dispite her many educational advantages and financial successes.

I do not want a president in the White House who is close (VERY close) to a racist hater of America.

I was in Europe trying to return home on 9/11. We made it as far as London--where we were stranded for 7 days confined mostly to a hotel room in utter shock, watching those planes fly into the towers again and again.

At that time it was thought that as many as 10,000 died in the towers. We also knew hundreds of fireman charged up the towers to save people from that cowardly act of terrorism before he towers collapsed. (My brother-in-law is a fireman.) We were VERY distraught.

The people of London were very gracious--waiting for hours in line by the American embassy to sign a book of condolence.

To now find out that THAT VERY WEEK Obama's closest friend in the world was screaming in public that America got what it disserved makes me sick.

Obama has pledged to lift the $200,000 cap on the 12% SS tax (meaning that many self employed persons--when state taxes are included--will be subject to an effective 60% tax rate under an Obama presidency.

As a Democrat, I have many legitimate reasons for opposing Obama's nomination.

Blogonaut said...

PS: I note that HRC is not only surging in the Keystone State, but has also surged in the Slate deathwatch widigit on your site from a low of 6.7 to a stupendous 9.9 on the eve of a stunning primary victory--dispite being outspent by 4-to-1.

Blogonaut said...

***BREAKING NEWS UPDATE (and reassuring to my prediction of a 14 to 16 point Clinton victory today) American Research Group, Inc. just released its April 21, 2008 Pennsylvania poll results: Clinton 56%, Obama 40%--a 16 point lead.

Moreover, these results show a 3 point increase from 4/19/08, demonstrating a clear trend in Clinton’s favor—meaning a Clinton victory of 19 points is not out of the question.

jiminy jilliker said...

"neither with 'approval' or 'disapproval'."

Excuse me, but that's hogwash. The title of your post, its content, and the comment you left underneath mine indicate that you agree with the claims made by the sources you cited. In other words, you approved of their content.
Of course you can disagree with me (and you clearly do), but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

My main point here is that if you have principled policy disagreements with Obama, you should absolutely air them. But this conspiracy-theory, naked character assassination is not only based on falsehood and innuendo, but it is harmful to the Democratic party, and thus the country, no matter who wins the nomination.

I don't know why you recounted your personal 9/11 experience for me. Yes, it was as horrific as you say. Constantly being reminded of the tragedy of that day is one of the worst things about living in New York City.

One reason I support Obama is because I think he will be better at responding to the threat of terrorism.

Again, obviously you disagree. But if you actually think that Obama is somehow in league with terrorists, or sympathetic to them, there's really nothing I can say to that. The disconnect between how you and I view the world and process information is so gaping that we may as well be speaking different languages.

And for whatever it's worth, I largely agree with your assessment of the likely outcome tonight. I think the most astute analyst of this race has been Al Giordano at The Field. About six weeks ago-just after Ohio/Texas, he predicted a 14 point Clinton victory. I buy that. He's since adjusted his prediction, to a lower margin for Clinton, but I don't think the race has changed that much.

And yes, I still think Obama will win the nomination.

But by all means, keep the updates coming.

Blogonaut said...

My 9/11 experience was presented in aid of explaining why I feel so strongly about rejecting a presidental hopeful who 1. is could not be closer to the America hater who gloated when Osama killed 3,000 Americans in the towers alone and 2. why many many Americans feel the same way.

Obama claims he was not in the pews on the Sunday after 9/11 to hear those remarks. But if the is the man of faith he claims to be, how ist it that he did not take his family to chruch on that day of all days?


And why, once Obama did hear the remarks (I believe he WAS THERE AND DID HEAR THEM)WHY DID NE NOT BREAK OFF ALL TIES.

God damn America?

I think Obama is toast in Indiana, every following state primary where his black 92% cannot prop him uop, and in the general election.

jiminy jilliker said...

Yeah. Those dusky hordes don't count, eh?

Give me a break.

Again: I think Obama has shown better judgment than Clinton on matters of national security.

Again: You seem to disagree. I can't even try to convince you because you aren't addressing policy and subjective impressions can't be argued against. Obviously my impressions are different, but I'm getting the feeling that we aren't just speaking different languages, but actually speaking them out of different orifices.

Just out of curiosity, though (and I will likely regret this), what do you plan to do if Obama wins the nomination?

Blogonaut said...

To answer your question: The only thing I can do, vote for McCain in the general election.

I cannot give money to McCain because he has opted to receive public funds in the general.

However, I believe that Hillary will get the nomination and it will not come to that.

Unless something dramatic happens to persuade me otherwise, the chances of my voting for Obama are somewhat small.

Finally, unless you can gain more respect for differing points of view (your “orifices” comment) you are never going to persuade anyone of anything.

It’s been nice talking to you, but you have now come full circle to your original pimp an hominem comment about a typo in an earlier post.

And just so I don’t leave you with the wrong impression, I interact regularly with people I do not 100% agree with, but we have mutual respect for each other, e.g. Donna Brazile, who I exchanged several blackberry exchanges with Tuesday and today on several subjects.

It is a shame that you do not have the maturity to do the same without degenerating into personal attack.