Come on America, John McCain Was Only "Isolated"!

The recent spat of Democrats attacking John McCain's war record is really strange, considering what the point of it is.  The point, for those who might not know, is to devalue military service when it comes to being able to execute the office of the presidency.  Its angering, for sure, but its even stranger when we re-wind back to 2004 when the bulwark of Senator John Kerry's campaign was that he had served in the military, and that military service was why he was better to be president than the "draft-dodger" George W. Bush.  Will this backfire?  Who knows, things seem to be going the Democrats way these days.

But lets look closer.  Rand Beers said that McCain's time in "isolation" cause him to missed all the social revolutions going on in the 1960s.  First of all, RAND, he wasn't in "isolation," he was shot down flying missions that nobody else wanted to fly in a war not a lot fo people wanted to fight in.  He wasn't in "isolation," asshat, he was a "PRISON OF WAR."  What makes this even more ridiculous that it wasn't but a year or so ago that Democrats constantly used John McCain as an example of what a Republican "should be."  RedState commentator Dan McLaughlin puts it best:

1. Um, McCain's father was the commander of the whole Pacific theater during the war, McCain heard anti-war speeches broadcast into his cell, he was entreated to meet with anti-war groups, and he wrote a War College thesis in 1973 focusing on the effect of that movement on POWs. It's laughable to suggest he's somehow ignorant of what went on.

2. I love this irony:

because McCain was in an unfortunate state of "isolation" during much of the Vietnam War, he missed the domestic turmoil which took place in the United States

You know who else was living in Southeast Asia far from the U.S. political scene in 1967-71? Barack Obama, Indonesian schoolboy, that's who.

3. A quotation from Thomas Jefferson about his political opponents comes to mind:

They say we lied them out of power, and openly avow they will do the same by us.

Convinced that "swift-boating" was both untruthful and effective, but not understanding why, the former Kerryites avow to do the same to McCain. Hilarity ensues.

Indeed.  As for Wesley Clark, words cannot be found.  That this warrior, who fought in Vietnam with honor, would slice a comrade in such an nasty manner, smear a fellow veteran in such a way, it just speaks to the kind of character "General" Clark has.  But I encourage the Obama campaign to continue down this line . . it only further reminds Americans what McCain has given his country and never complained while Obama has only taken from his country and always (with his bride leading the way) complained about it. 

John McCain is a lot of things, god knows us conservatives have tangled with him, but he IS a hero and that "isolation" that has so warped his mind in the warped minds of those like Rand Beers and Wesley Clark was life taken from McCain for his country.  And unlike Obama, who's spent his Ivy League life complaining about America, McCain never complained about what was done to him.  The beatings, the broken bones, the psychological attacks, the loneliness . . . McCain took it ALL and to this day has never complained about Vietnam, about war, about anything.  I think that is what is driving liberals mad . . . McCain is using Vietnam and his service in it as a positive, and idea they cannot understand nor accept.

And where is "Mr. New Politics," Senator Obama?  What happened to bringing us together, to changing the tone in Washington?  In a presidential campaign, nothing is done without a president's knowledge, and this attack must have come from the very top.  So, Senator New Politics, do you stand with Rand Beers and Wesley Clark?

Barak Obama has talked about bridging the parties,  and that means taking on your own party.  His half-page political resume shows that he has never done this, nor ever wanted too.  John McCain has done it.  He's taken on his own party tooth-and-nail, one big issues like immigration and campaign finance.  John McCain can look America in the eye with eyes that have seen war, and tell them he has taken on the big boys, his own party, and the special interests. 

So Mr. Obama, do you stand with your party as it tries to render heroism as nothing more than "missing out on history?"  To degrade military service as qualification for public service?  Or will you stand up to your party's smear-merchants and defend John McCain from the very base attacks you claim to be the man who can stop?

And you these guys have stepped way over the line when you go "hell yeah," to anything John Warner might say:

At least five Republican senators and retired military officers — four on a conference call arranged by McCain's campaign — cried foul Monday, particularly over Clark's last line.

"I was utterly shocked," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., told the conference call, "... that he would in such a disrespectful way attack one of his fellow career military officers."

"Beyond comprehension ... further erosion of our nation's political discourse," said former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., in a written statement.

"Complete silliness," retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Carl Smith said on the call.

Retired Marine Lt. Col. Orson Swindle said Clark was "denigrating the character and the experience and the integrity and the performance" of McCain.

"A very indecent thing," said retired Air Force Col. Bud Day.

Comments

[James Atticus Bowden]

This is the hard ball, blood sport, aspect of politics. It happens all the time. One political candidate takes whatever the case is for the opponent and disparages it. No matter what the facts are you can attack a person.

Remember the old joke on what an opponent would say if a candidate (McCain) actually walked on water? "McCain can't swim!"

It sucks.

In Virginia, our side should stop doing it. Beat the other side up on issues, but let them engage in the personal attacks to their own shame. Refute their attacks but don't engage in them in response.

[Chris]

I know. I guess I just expected more with guys, like Clark, who fought in Vietnam and understand what war is about and what McCain went through.

You expect this from hacks like Rand Beers, but not Wesley Clark. He served and was injuried heavily in 'Nam. I don't know, it just seems odd that someone let politics do something like that when he knows exactly what McCain sacrificed.

[Dan]

It was a dumb thing for Clark to say and a dumb way to say it. And as someone who has run for president himself he should have known how it would be taken.

Having said that, I don't think he meant in any way to minimize or devalue what McCain suffered at the hands of the communists in North Viet Nam.

And what he said was not factually inaccurate. Being taken prisoner doesn't, in and of itself, prepare one in any way to be president. Of course, McCain's overall military experience is a part of his bio that is completely relevent to his preparedness to assume the office.

Bottom line: Very few votes, if any, will move because of Clark's unfortunate remarks. Nor should they. The American people are focused on the big stuff. In this election cycle that would be the economy and gasoline prices that may be north of five or six dollars a gallon by election day.

I am not happy with what Gen. Clark said. I just think it, like so much these days, is being blown up into much more than what he actually said. I do think he is a butthead for not acknowledging that he shouldn't have said it and should simply go ahead and apologize.

Anyone who is aware of recent political history would understand why McCain might be sensistive to the mention, by an opponent, of his time as a POW. His campaign eight years ago was derailed in the 2000 South Carolina primary when the Bush folks spread the rumors that McCain was somehow mentally unbalanced from his time in captivity and was therefore unfit. I remember being thoroughly disgusted with Bush for that and deciding that I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. It is a damn shame the Republicans didn't nominate McCain in 2000. We'd be so much better off as a nation if they had.

[RicJohn]

No wonder we can't get any real problems solved in this country...this whole situation is all to do about nothing. If leading Republicans can get past their talking points, they would see that Wesley Clark wasn't devaluing McCain's service, but questioned whether his particular actions in combat will have relevance to the presidency. There's nothing wrong with asking that question, even thought the GOP thought police would have you think otherwise. Where was all this phony outrage when John Kerry's record was being trashed, and so many Republican creeps were wearing fake medals that the GOP Convention? People thought it was funny, and even said Kerry shot himself. It was a disgusting smear, and the GOP leadership was silent. McCain "decried" it, but still campaigned with those who condoned it--which really made him no better than those people. McCain acts as though he has integrity and works with Democrats because he likes it--but its all to cultivate an image that he has tried to run away from. A perfect example is his initial support of immigration, his running away from the legislation after GOP backlash, and now his secret campaigning for Hispanic votes. He says on thing to the GOP base and another to Hispanic groups in "closed" meetings. For someone who supposedly loves government transparency, he isn't being very transparent. The point is--John McCain is bankrupt on ideas. His campaign is stagnant and he needed a "controversy" to regain relevance. If this is his idea of running an "honorable" campaign, then he needs to go back to the drawing boards. The hysteria from the GOP is a disservice to voters who want to hear more than talking points.

Chris--your argument also makes little sense because Obama and Clark aren't close at all. He was Hillary Clinton's guy, and as little as a month and a half ago, he was trashing Obama. I've never even seen them at any appearance together. Why in the world would Obama be consulting with Clark for a Sunday morning appearance about McCain?