McCain Prays For Victory, Clark Shoots Him Down

Meeting with Evangelical idols Billy and Franklin Graham, John McCain returned from the Mount with no tablets—just the heartfelt praise of these old family friends.

Meanwhile, General Wesley Clark—a former presidential contender and a possible Obama running mate—told Face the Nation’s Bob Schieffer of McCain:

"Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Maybe, but McCain’s captor seems to think it counts for something.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted 11:39 AM EST by Andy in John Waters, Religion, Republican Party | Permalink

Like it?

Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!

Comments

Someone ought to tell Wesley Clark to shut the f#ck up. And it had better be Obama if he wants to get elected in November.

Posted by: mike | Jun 30, 2008 12:56:46 PM
Someone ought to tell Wesley Clark to shut the f#ck up. And it had better be Obama if he wants to get elected in November.

Posted by: mike | Jun 30, 2008 12:57:16 PM
The Democratic surrogates should stay away from discussing who's qualified.

Posted by: BILLF | Jun 30, 2008 1:20:57 PM
Jesus Christ, what happened to McCain? I miss the old Johnny Mac; the one who wasn't beholden to people like the Grahams. It's like he's really trying to remold himself in the image of Dubya. The only thing sadder than being George W. Bush is TRYING to be George W. Bush and failing miserably.

That said, Wesley Clark was way out of line. McCain is untested, untried, and too inexperienced? Um HELLO! And no, flying a jet and being shot down doesn't qualify you to be president. But it does earn you the respect that comes with having served your duty and your country. Having been a prisoner of war doesn't diminish that, either. McCain may not have been a model soldier but he did his job, served his time, and has my respect for having done so.

Posted by: Chas | Jun 30, 2008 1:25:20 PM
Welcome to the premiere of what I expect to repeat about a gazillion times between now and November in the hope of keeping some with very good intentions from voting for McMyth.

It comes from the interview SF Mayor Gavin Newsom did on his radio show with Arianna Huffington. Now I have mixed feelings about the Greek Ms. who woke up one morning to discover that her [now former] husband was tres gai, but she accurately and FAIRLY nails the dick of her former friend McCain to the political chair:

Huffington: "at some point John McCain decided to really sell his soul to the Right to become President." Many people and the media have not yet "updated their image of John McCain...they're thinking of voting for a John McCain who is not on the ballot—he does not exist."

Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jun 30, 2008 1:41:55 PM
Hooray for Weslie Clark! Being a vet is laudable, but does is no requisite for being president. The "commander in chief" is a civilian. Having too much of a military mindset is a serious question if we are to avoid the further militarization of our nation and our government. Plus, McCain was at the bottom of his class at West Point. We don't need another spoiled rich kid on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by: Brian | Jun 30, 2008 1:51:51 PM
5th from the bottom of his class

Multiple crashes (not just one)

Mccain is an idiot who didn't end up being a military janitor only because of his grandfather and fater both being admirals.

Kudos to Clark.

Mike

LOL Your so cute thinking mccain can actualy win. I bet you still believe in the easter bunny. The most recent polls are showing 12-15% lead in Obama's favor.

PS could you please explain how mccain's son belonging to a country club that forbids women from eating in the dining room is good for america

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 30, 2008 1:53:34 PM
CHAZ, why do you respect war service as something good and a prerequisite to being President?! War is evil. Military is the typical straight man's response to conflict resolution, no?

Posted by: nikko | Jun 30, 2008 1:56:54 PM
McCain was a real dick while in the Navy. He got to fly planes because his daddy and grand daddy were admirals. He was bottom of his class at the Academy and in flight school. He crashed 5 planes. His horseplay may have been the cause of the USS Forrestal fire that resulted in the death of quite a few sailors. While a POW he got special treatment, private quarters and gave up information for special medical care. He made propaganda tapes for the North Viet Namese. He was rude and abusive to the wives and children of fellow POW's/MIA's during Congressional hearings. Hell, his former NVA captor and torturer endorses him for POTUS. He's really not a "war hero" he's a survivor. What did McCain ever do that was heroic? And Wesley Clark has every right to his opinion. Interesting to is how Bob Schieffer was so adamant in his defense of McCain. He's never defended any Democrat as vigorously.

Posted by: Bob R | Jun 30, 2008 2:02:09 PM
NIKKO: Because war is sometimes a necessary evil and risking your life for an effort you believe in is worthy of respect. I don't see where you got that I think serving in the military is a prerequisite for being president, though. In fact I said it WASN'T.

"Military is the typical straight man's response to conflict resolution, no?"

You know the military is filled to the brim with fags, right? A lot of the guys you think are straight aren't, and some of the most gun-ho warmongers out there are gay (Gay Patiot much?) and/or closeted. On the flipside, some of the most ardent anti-war activists are straight men. You seem to be operating on the idea that all straights are one way and all gays are another. That's dangerous ground, my friend.

Posted by: Chas | Jun 30, 2008 2:19:27 PM
BOB R: Interesting stuff. Where'd you find all that out at?

Posted by: Chas | Jun 30, 2008 2:21:24 PM
So a guy who served his country, got shot down, captured and held prisoner during his younger years or a guy who spent his youth smoking crack and getting high. Wow what a choice.

Posted by: zeke2 | Jun 30, 2008 2:40:16 PM
respect for McCain? Puh-leeeez.

"But many people—from gay Republican bloggers to mainstream journalists—seemed to miss, or ignore, the true angle of the McCain statement: He was making a national political play for fundamentalist Christians. In an email, Los Angeles-based Republican political strategist Arnold Steinberg wrote to me: “McCain took the position this is a state issue. That said, he could have either (a) said it is an issue for California voters to decide and stayed neutral, or (b) said he supported the measure. He chose the latter, probably to help solidify his base.”

McCain, in other words, wants to pull another George Bush circa 2004 by capturing the fear/religious vote—the “base”—at the expense of gays and lesbians. It was more politics as usual from the Arizona senator, who runs as a “change” candidate with the campaign slogan: “Reform, Prosperity, Peace.” And, in the long term, it may not even be smart politics."

Read the full article here:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/queer-town/queer-town-mccain-plays-small/index.php

Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jun 30, 2008 2:45:41 PM
ZEKE2, you don't need to put down the pipe. No one is voting for you.

Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jun 30, 2008 2:47:31 PM
zeke2 are you johny lane? Zeke supports Obama.

Mccain wouldn't be where he is if it wasn't for his admirl grandfather and amiral father. 5th from bottom of his class and multiple crashes = an idiot born with a silver spoon in his mouth ala bush

Anyway;

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/phoenix-country-club-bans-women-its-dining-room

More on the phoenix country club that mccain has spoken at and his son Andrew is a member at. They forbid women from eating lunch in the grill room

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 30, 2008 2:50:16 PM
Seriously, if John McCain is unqualified, Barack Obama doesn't even rate being mentioned as a candidate. "Shut-up, Wesley!"

Bob R, I'm not sure repeating stuff from a site which claims McCain's dad was some kind of Zionist zealot is a good idea.

McCain did well in courses he liked and did the minimums in those he didn't. However he was apparently something of a minor discipline problem which effected his ranking. His temper is well known.

Considering GW is seen as a moron yet was a better student than Al Gore and some of the most well-educated and intelligent presidents have been rated among the biggest historic failures, I'm not sure any of this means much other than, truly, McCain *is* a survivor.

Obama might be good with a canned speech but where has his leadership been in the US Senate? I still think he should've run for governor or at least filled out a single full term in the Senate before trying to jump into the White House. I fear his reach exceeds his grasp and we'll all suffer.

Posted by: queendru | Jun 30, 2008 2:51:58 PM
Queendru

Your reasoning means Lincoln would have been an abysmal president ad should never have run.

Lincoln was a state senator. Obama has more experience on the national level than Lincoln ever had.

Lincoln, just 1 of the greatet if not the greatest president america has had.

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 30, 2008 3:12:52 PM
Yesterday may have seen Pride parades in many places but today it's a parade of morons lurching down Towleroad.

There is one, repeat ONE, reason above all others to vote for Obama over McCain REGARDLESS of their other individual strengths or weaknesses. It would be the reason to crawl to the polls if you have to to vote for Obama even if ON EVERY OTHER the two were identical:

There is NOTHING more certain than that a President McCain would appoint more people like card carrying homohating fascist Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. For those who may have forgotten, or never realized, SC judges are appointed for life. At current ages 53 and 58, we will likely be stuck with the two right wingers Bush appointed, Roberts and Alito, for the next THIRTY YEARS!

At least two, and possibly three, of the more liberal Justices are likely to retire during the next President's tenure. Stevens, 88, Ginsburg, 75, and Kennedy, 71, all voted to overturn sodomy laws. Phony Jesus Lover Pat Robertson actually encouraged people to PRAY for their death as a result. Lock Up The Fags Scalia [from whose cold, dead hands one will have to one day pry his SC seat] nearly [but unfortunately did not] had a fatal nonheart attack over their votes.

Marriage equality cases, cases involving gay adoption or discrimination against gays in the military, etc., would all crash and burn before a court made even more fascistic by future McCain appointments.

So if you're someone who GENUINELY cares about civil liberties, your own and others, then you'd better damn well stop wasting your time quibbling over who's more qualified to be President when the REAL issues is who's more likely to lock up progress in civil liberties and throw away the key.

Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jun 30, 2008 3:24:23 PM
Mchae

Yeah, thankfuly the MSM is actualy talking about this issue.

Everywhere you turn the MSM is mentioning a mccain prsidency would lock down the SC as ultra conservative for at least 30 years.

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 30, 2008 3:44:00 PM
typos

I meant michael

Posted by: Jimmybyo | Jun 30, 2008 3:46:36 PM
Michael Bedwell expresses so well what is, to my chagrin, the most important reason to vote for Senator Obama. I am still really saddened at the his rapid move to the right after besting Senator Clinton but I will probably vote for him anyway. He MIGHT be less of a piece of crap than the incumbent.

General Clark is suffering from the same non-political illness as Geraldine Ferraro: telling the truth. All this “commander-in-chief” crap is silly. The framers inserted the term to keep from having a military dictatorship. A President is not supposed to be a great military thinker. She (oops…”he” again this quadrennium) is supposed to be able to listen to qualified military strategists (like General Clark), sift through the various advice and make broadly applicable decisions. Presidents aren’t supposed to run wars. Shit, the last real career military man to be in charge (Dwight Eisenhower) did everything he could to keep the US out of conflicts.

If a successful military background is the major criterion for being commander-in-chief, then Presidents GHW Bush and Carter sure had more cred. than Senator McCain and should have been pretty darned good commanders-in-chief. (Newsflash: neither was very good). Our own, beloved Zeke (Not Zeke2—thanks for appending the digit, too) actually has more experience and training in military strategy and tactics than Senator McCain, so maybe we should start a Draft Zeke campaign. He’s a damned site cuter than either of the two major candidates, too!

Posted by: JT | Jun 30, 2008 4:07:08 PM
Looking at the photo of McCain praying with Franklin Graham, who blamed acceptanct of gays for 9-11 I wonder how ANYONE in the GLBT community could consider voting for him. Whether I agree with Clark I have to say that he (Clark) has been extremely forthright in the last 8 years whereas McCain buckled under and towed the Bush line.

Posted by: db | Jun 30, 2008 4:16:18 PM
Crack is smack, say no to drugs and no to NOBAMA

Posted by: paul | Jun 30, 2008 4:26:09 PM
Whoa, where did all the Republicans come from? Good for Clark. Smack McCain right in his perceived "strength". Hard and repeatedly.

(And Clark is right, in any case. Having been a prisoner of war isn't really a substantive credential indicative of any kind of leadership.)

Posted by: Sportin' Life | Jun 30, 2008 4:35:27 PM
Well, I think we need to be fair to McCain's war record. In attempts to outdo his father and grandfather, he volunteered for many of the more dangerous missions and was shot down. (It wasn't like he couldn't steer.) Now, he was probably given these missions in honor of his forebears, probably against the better judgment of his superiors, but it was brave/foolhardy in all the best respects. That alone would not qualify him, but being senator for a hellishly long time does.

His attempts to placate the religious right is merely an attempt to keep them going to the polls in Nov. Otherwise, it's 1992 all over again. He's following the advice of his consultants. That said, he gets no enthusiasm from them at all. Why he's not contesting Obama for independents I don't know. He's an ideal centrist candidate, but apparently he's getting bad advice. Ceding the center to Obama (who's admittedly to the left of Michael Bedwell!) is suicidal and stupid. (It's be nice if people here realized that politicians don't believe a quarter of the things they say.)

I'm not sure why people are worried about the SC. Democrats control the Senate, so a very right-wing judge is not going to make it to the court.

Posted by: anon | Jun 30, 2008 4:38:10 PM
Ah, Anon, noble sentiment, but you underestimate congressional Democrats' power of capitulation. That is mistake numero uno in politics. :)

Posted by: Sami | Jun 30, 2008 4:46:48 PM
First of all I would like to thank ZEKE2 for changing his screen name since I disagree with just about every comment he has ever made and it made me cringe that people thought his comments were mine.

I would also like to come to the defense of Gen. Clark here and I do this from the personal perspective of a combat veteran. Clark's comment, whether you like his style or not was not in ANY way disrespectful of McCains service or of his time as a POW. In fact Clark has MANY times lauded McCain's service and called him a hero for what he endured in Vietnam. That does not however change the fact that neither his service nor his POW status, in and of themselves qualifies him to be POTUS, nor does it mitigate his recent policy positions (many of which are complete reversals of previously held positions related to military service; ie torture, GI bill, Iraq war, Gitmo etc). Since McCain has NUMEROUS times, in NUMEROUS campaigns through the years, brought up his military record and his POW status as a qualification for public office it is perfectly acceptable to review just how his service and his POW status really relates to the office he is seeking and pointing out when his claims are false, misleading or over-blown. It is particularly appropriate for a retired FOUR STAR GENERAL to do such a review, make such observations and present the facts as he sees them to the public.

Let's also not forget that it was the Republican political machine who INVENTED and EXCECUTED the very first shameful attacks on the past military service (as opposed to questions of the relevance of past military service), or lack thereof, when they first attacked Clinton for his lack of service, then Gore for his volunteer service in Vietnam (as an army journalist which Rove and Company determined and promoted was worse than the NO service of Bush) and then the bogus and shameful swift boat attacks on John Kerry's VOLUNTEER service for COMBAT DUTY (again against the NON-service and service dodging of Bush). And let us NEVER forget the most sick and shameful attack of all; the Rovian attack against Max Cleland, a combat veteran who lost both legs and part of an arm in Vietnam yet was labeled a traitor and un-American, causing him to loose his re-election bid to yet another candidate without a military service record.

It seems that the Republican Party can't make up their mind if previous military/combat service or the lack thereof is a good thing or a bad thing. It seems to be totally dependent on the status of the Republican candidate in a particular race at a particular time.

The campaigns against Gore and Kerry were vicious ATTACKS on the actual SERVICE of these men rather than legitimate questions about how much their HONORABLE service made them qualified to be POTUS. There is a HUGE difference between the two and I think Clark clearly and honorably followed the latter.

And by the way, if McCain is so honorable as military man then why does he have the kingpin of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (who he at one time condemned) working on his campaign? I guess we can add this to the scores of other flip flops that he has made over the last year. This great shame of it is that in EVERY case of his long list of flip flops he has flipped from a good position (which garnered him a reputation as a maverick) to the far right-wing/neocon/fundamentalist party line.

It's a damned shame too because I used to have alot of respect for him before he marinated himself in the dark side.

Posted by: Zeke | Jun 30, 2008 4:59:50 PM
Do we really want someone with a "well known temper" to be President and have their finger on the button? Especially someone who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder.

Posted by: Dukedvl | Jun 30, 2008 6:11:17 PM
It's sad Obama had to reject Gen. Clark's very reasonable statement.

As to McCain's leadership on national security issues, I should think his original and continued stance on Iraq should demonstrate his qualifications there.

And for those of you who keep bringing up Obama's record in the Senate: do you have any idea how seniority works in that body? When he entered the Senate in 2005 he was 99th out of 100 in seniority.

Posted by: Kevinvt | Jun 30, 2008 8:07:15 PM
kevinvt

It might be because Obama has become gun shy due to standing by jeremiah right till he was hounded to death.

Gen clark himself has responded and says he stands by what he said.

A side note, Gen Clark has stood for the repeal of DADT and for full marriage rights going back to at least 2000. gen Clark despite what anybody thinks about him and or what he said has been a friend of the gay community for quite some time.

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 30, 2008 10:47:02 PM
ALL politicians are the lowest of low scum. I think each side should be just as disgusted with themselves. As a registered Independent I'll be holding my nose as I make my own choice. It won't be made by reading the rants for one candidate over the other on a blog.

Posted by: Indy | Jul 1, 2008 7:39:40 AM
Clark stands by his remark, as I think he should:

"John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues."

Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 1, 2008 10:18:05 AM
I'm sorry that Barack felt he had to disavow General Clark's statement, but I guess that's what the voters want him to do--the one's he's trying to appeal to: be nice.

I was hoping the Democrats would really go to war with the Republicans this time. What's the point of being the "nice guys" if you never win?

Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jul 1, 2008 10:42:35 AM
Geez, just reading the comments on this topic, other than the trolls (which I KNOW are here and could care less), there are way too many SELF-HATE gays who would rather have McCrazyCain=McBush represent them.

Whatever queens!

Posted by: FunMe | Jul 2, 2008 1:17:30 AM

John Waters | Religion | Republican Party

McCain Prays For Victory, Clark Shoots Him Down

Like it?

RECENT STORIES:

Comments

Post a comment

Recent Comments