« News: Jake Moves In, Angelina Shoots & Scores, Bush Whacking Iran Plus Google...I Forgot What I Was Gonna Say |
Main
| "I'm Like The Boy Next Door, But Just A Little Bit Off" »
06/30/2008
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.
Posted 11:39 AM EST by Andy Towle in John Waters, Religion, Republican Party | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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