PhilO

More on Obama and his church

80 posts in this topic

I also want to know why you're trashing country music. It's a big part of Americana and, I believe, the most popular music in America. To be sure, I'm not an aficionado, but Dolly Pardon doesn't strike me as a bad influence. I mean, genres such as heavy metal and rap seem quite a bit more negative.

Also, what’s wrong with wearing your patriotism on your sleeve? You can rationally be a patriot of America.

I "trash" country music because I live north of I-80, if you get the drift. My use of "country music" is more metonymy than literal. Up north (at least in urban areas) it tends to conjure up images of "white trash," blind "patriots" or [insert favorite epithet here]. Other than the Dixie Chicks, how many "country music" stars can you think of that don't conjure up images of right-wing Christians? As for heavy metal, a classical musician friend of mine will argue until she's blue in the face that metal has much in common with classical. I don't buy it, but then again, I wasn't suggesting heavy metal fans as being any more rational than country music fans.

As for "patriotism on your sleeve," remember, I'm most suspicious of the uneducated, irrational kind of patriots who wave flags without understanding why, and who are afraid to criticize anything American for fear of being "unpatriotic."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who says I'm campaigning for Obama? I don't really care for him. However, I do want him to win the Democratic nomination since I think Clinton is worse. There's nothing really to look forward to in the general election. McCain is a social conservative and fiscal liberal, just like Bush. Obama is a social and fiscal liberal. Clinton is a fiscal socialist (even by Democratic standards) and, as it turns out, a social conservative. The only thing McCain has going for him is that he is old and might well retire after one term, giving us a better shot for a decent candidate to emerge in 2012.

As for my ideal candidate, it would be the Objectivist candidate. Unfortunately, there aren't very many of them around, and certainly not on a national stage. There are some libertarians who could masquerade as Objectivists, but I think this board would be in agreement that such a person is undesirable.

As for my "practical" candidate who is politically acceptable to the masses, I'd be more interested in a "blue-state Republican" (social liberal and fiscal conservative). Illinois has a few, but the IL GOP is such a joke right now, and dominated at the moment by the conservative wing (though Oberweis' loss of Hastert's seat might cause the tide to turn a bit). Some Northeast Republicans might fit the bill, but a lot of them (e.g. Lincoln Chafee) are just Democrats with an "R" instead of a "D" after their names. A red-state Democrat is the worst of both worlds. Barring that, the best we can do is split the government. If Obama gets in, then I want the GOP winning Congress (at least by 2010). If McCain, then let Nancy and Harry run Congress for a few more years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For (just some of) Obama's and Clinton's terrorist associations, see:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/23/barac...und-compendium/

Obama's political career apparently started with a fundraiser at the Chicago home of two Weather-Underground convicted terrorists.

I call him the "God-damn-America" candidate.

Clinton was on the board of a foundation that gave donations to the PLO, even after it was officially designated as a terrorist organization. I believe I saw the specifics at Little Green Footballs earlier this week. They also had info on a couple of explicit Marxists, at least one of whom supports dictator Hugo Chavez, in Obama's organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's terrorist bedfellows, at his entry into politics, were Bernadine Dohrn (who publicly cheered the Manson Family murders) and the incompetent Bill Ayers (who did his best, but his bombs didn't kill anybody), both of the Weather Underground.

Nice people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Sowell puts it very succinctly, at Capitalism Magazine:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5178

The difference between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is that they are addressing different audiences, using different styles adapted to those audiences.

It is a difference between upscale demagoguery and ghetto demagoguery, playing the audience for suckers in both cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thomas Sowell puts it very succinctly, at Capitalism Magazine:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5178

The difference between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is that they are addressing different audiences, using different styles adapted to those audiences.

It is a difference between upscale demagoguery and ghetto demagoguery, playing the audience for suckers in both cases.

Of course, Hillary's just playing "bubba" demagoguery, too, and is just as nihilistic. Witness her rants at industry and shameless pandering to the uneducated. She gets away with it because she's white, and because she's a woman. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not so much for Obama as I am against Clinton. Obama as a legislator has proven to be fairly typical. Even hard core Black Panther Bobby Rush has been fairly tame on the national stage, and there's really no reason to think Obama would be any different. Clinton, on the other hand, has already shown us what she'd do if given the chance. Last time, she screwed up, thankfully giving us a gridlocked government. This time around, she won't make the same mistakes.

Perhaps Betsy and you can continue to live under what I think is the illusion that Clinton would be dogged by the same controversies that dogged Bill in the 1990s, but the lesson here is that a cornered Clinton is a dangerous Clinton. Plus, consider the polling data. If Obama gets the nomination it will be despite the recent polls, not because of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ :

The Skeletons of Obama

Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:58:30 pm PDT

Here’s a quick run-down of some of Barack Obama’s questionable and disturbing associations:

* Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. The Obamas were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Hyde Park home for years.

* Terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, who runs the viciously anti-Israel web site Electronic Intifada.

* Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

* Reverend Jeremiah Wright. What more needs to be said?

* Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Samantha Power — fired after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.”

* Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Robert Malley — fired when it was revealed he has been holding talks with Hamas.

* Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. El-Hady’s web page suddenly vanished from the Obama campaign site with no explanation, after being exposed by LGF and others.

* Tony Rezko — a Chicago fixer currently in a whole lot of legal trouble.

There are more, I know; this is just off the top of my head.

I have never witnessed a presidential election in which a major candidate had this many skeletons in his closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never witnessed a presidential election in which a major candidate had this many skeletons in his closet.

Apparently you don't remember 1996 or 1992.

McCain has his baggage, too, though this should be a fairly close election. He needs to be wise with his choice of running mate, particularly since age will be a concern, as will succession (if he wins in 2008 and retires in 2012, that would open the door for Clinton again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News has a very inadequate and incomplete article documenting only a few of "God damn America" Obama's lies:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/tr...s-barack-obama/

(along with links to previous articles on the other candidates' prevarications).

Totally missing from the Fox News piece is any mention of O.'s blatant lies about his long-standing connections with Weather Underground terrorists, and his flip-flopping about his alleged "patriotism."

And the mainstream media are so far ignoring the writings of Obama's socialist/communist father, who advocated forced collectivization of farms, Soviet-style, and 100% taxation. According to Little Green Footballs, O. wrote that he got most of his values from his father. I certainly believe it. Probably the only statement by the ________ that I ever will believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it up, already. We have a choice between a candidate who attended a wacky church for 20 years, and another who actively sought the endorsement of someone who believes that Hitler was doing God's work by exterminating the Jews and helping lead to the creation of the Jewish state. Not a particularly compelling choice, but the one we have, nonetheless. For good measure, Hillary injected herself into the race by suggesting that she should stay in because we're before the point where RFK was assassinated in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fox News has a very inadequate and incomplete article documenting only a few of "God damn America" Obama's lies:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/tr...s-barack-obama/

(along with links to previous articles on the other candidates' prevarications).

Totally missing from the Fox News piece is any mention of O.'s blatant lies about his long-standing connections with Weather Underground terrorists, and his flip-flopping about his alleged "patriotism."

And the mainstream media are so far ignoring the writings of Obama's socialist/communist father, who advocated forced collectivization of farms, Soviet-style, and 100% taxation. According to Little Green Footballs, O. wrote that he got most of his values from his father. I certainly believe it. Probably the only statement by the ________ that I ever will believe.

Please keep stating the truth about the no-good, powerlusting Obama, Mr. Bucko. I enjoy reading your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Give it up, already. We have a choice between a candidate who attended a wacky church for 20 years, and another who actively sought the endorsement of someone who believes that Hitler was doing God's work by exterminating the Jews and helping lead to the creation of the Jewish state. Not a particularly compelling choice, but the one we have, nonetheless. For good measure, Hillary injected herself into the race by suggesting that she should stay in because we're before the point where RFK was assassinated in 1968.

With Obama we're not talking about just a difference in degree of leftness, we're talking about a difference in kind. You can't just rationalize away these things Bill Bucko points out. Frankly, I wasn't aware of some of them and I'm glad he's informing us. Shows you how badly the media informs us.

Btw, the McCain/Preacher and Obama/Preacher relationships are orthogonal. It’s not a valid comparison, since that wasn’t McCain’s preacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Give it up, already. We have a choice between a candidate who attended a wacky church for 20 years, and another who actively sought the endorsement of someone who believes that Hitler was doing God's work by exterminating the Jews and helping lead to the creation of the Jewish state. Not a particularly compelling choice, but the one we have, nonetheless. For good measure, Hillary injected herself into the race by suggesting that she should stay in because we're before the point where RFK was assassinated in 1968.

With Obama we're not talking about just a difference in degree of leftness, we're talking about a difference in kind. You can't just rationalize away these things Bill Bucko points out. Frankly, I wasn't aware of some of them and I'm glad he's informing us. Shows you how badly the media informs us.

Btw, the McCain/Preacher and Obama/Preacher relationships are orthogonal. It’s not a valid comparison, since that wasn’t McCain’s preacher.

Not to mention the viciousness of having his young daughters listen over and over to Wright's tirades. Had Obama been born in some third-world backwater, or had he been raised in some American ghetto, one could have probably have cut him a little slack based on the kind of ideas he'd been exposed to. But, to my knowledge, Obama was raised in Hawaii/Indonesia and then mainstream America. He's no "minority outsider." He's seen first-class prosperity in this country, as an immigrant in a sense, and how does he show his appreciation? "God damn America"???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With Obama we're not talking about just a difference in degree of leftness, we're talking about a difference in kind. You can't just rationalize away these things Bill Bucko points out. Frankly, I wasn't aware of some of them and I'm glad he's informing us. Shows you how badly the media informs us.

Btw, the McCain/Preacher and Obama/Preacher relationships are orthogonal. It’s not a valid comparison, since that wasn’t McCain’s preacher.

Actively seeking the endorsement of someone (and I mean actively) is a pretty strong act, as well. Both have some baggage. While McCain's might be lighter, he still has some.

While I wouldn't recommend the church to an aspiring politician, I don't know that the TUCC as a whole is really any worse than the average mainstream church, and certainly not like the "Fellowship" that Clinton espouses, or the Catholic church, which shuttled child abusers from parish to parish for decades rather than confront the problem head on. They are all irrational. There comes a point where it ceases to be meaningful debating which church is more irrational than the other.

As for Wright, clearly the guy went off the deep end sometime in his adult life, but someone who came of age when it was socially acceptable south of the Mason-Dixon line to lynch people or burn crosses on their property because of their skin color might harbor, shall we say "bitterness" toward this country. I think Wright's lingering conspiracy theorism is what most indefensible. That said, Hagee has some odd logic as well (Hitler did God's work by causing the deaths of 16 million), and if a candidate is seeking the votes of his supporters, one might wonder why.

That said, I'll probably still cast my completely symbolic vote for McCain this fall, though not without reservation. I continue to think Obama did us a favor by ridding us of the Clintons (at least for a while).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Please keep stating the truth about the no-good, powerlusting Obama, Mr. Bucko."

For goodness' sake, don't rely on me. I've simply passed on what I've read at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ and sites it links to (supplemented, occasionally, by Michelle Malkin). Read Little Green Footballs -- it's worth a visit every day!

Apparently Obama's fundraiser at the home of the Weather Underground terrorists is a matter of public record. It's been picked up by Ann Coulter and (as I recall) National Review -- people with bad premises; but I'm confident they do far more extensive fact-checking than the leftist mainstream media.

Unlike the generally reliable news items it passes on, today Little Green Footballs has a link to a somewhat speculative article (clearly identified as such) raising the possibility that Obama is on drugs (cocaine and/or amphetamines). It does give supporting evidence: Obama's claim that he's visited 57 of the 59 states is only one of a long chain of manic misstatements. With his messianic pretensions, the little would-be dictator does seem to fit the pattern:

It's worth noting here the correlation between narcissism and stimulant drug abuse. Obambi exhibits an almost pathological narcissism, an ego wildly out of proportion to anything he has actually accomplished in his life. Someone with this personality defect is drawn to irrationally risky behavior because of a conviction of invulnerability, or superhuman superiority.

Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had such a syndrome. He chose to express it with hookers, but it's more common to see it expressed with drugs, cocaine in particular.

No accusations are being made here. To The Point is not accusing Barack Hussein Obama of illegal drug use. It is saying that he is behaving of late in such a way to cause suspicion that he might. That suspicion must be put to rest.

from http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3208/2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wasn't making a deliberate joke (watch the video on the page Bill gave), that clip ought to be shown on every news channel and the front of every news page. ewv was apparently right when he characterized my "unmitigated disaster" as an understatement if that man becomes President.

If he stays in the race - and I think all of the evidence shows that he's the current favorite to become President - I think the only right thing to do in the election is to vote in whatever way that maximizes his chances of losing (I don't know if that means voting for Hillary or McCain.)

Considering the position as the most powerful man in the world, and that far less important jobs require drug tests, I would now say that drug tests should be mandated for all Presidential candidates, with the results made public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he wasn't making a deliberate joke (watch the video on the page Bill gave), that clip ought to be shown on every news channel and the front of every news page.

With his claim to 57 states imagine what the voting by the dead will be like in Chicago, and with that kind of inflated arithmetic think what he would with taxes and the ESA list. But that is the least of it -- remember that he is "moderating" his views and trying to appear to be "sensible" to win over the "moderate swing vote" that usually determines the election outcome.

ewv was apparently right when he characterized my "unmitigated disaster" as an understatement if that man becomes President.

"Apparently"? "Understatement"? I actually said that "unmitigated disaster" is "wildly optimistic". Please strive for accuracy :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ :

The Skeletons of Obama

Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:58:30 pm PDT

Here’s a quick run-down of some of Barack Obama’s questionable and disturbing associations:

* Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. The Obamas were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Hyde Park home for years.

* Terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, who runs the viciously anti-Israel web site Electronic Intifada.

* Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

* Reverend Jeremiah Wright. What more needs to be said?

* Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Samantha Power — fired after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.”

* Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Robert Malley — fired when it was revealed he has been holding talks with Hamas.

* Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. El-Hady’s web page suddenly vanished from the Obama campaign site with no explanation, after being exposed by LGF and others.

* Tony Rezko — a Chicago fixer currently in a whole lot of legal trouble.

There are more, I know; this is just off the top of my head.

I have never witnessed a presidential election in which a major candidate had this many skeletons in his closet.

Aside from his overt policies in the White House, imagine what kind of appointments he would make to his cabinet and other top government jobs where policy is made and enforced in ways that most people, aside from the direct victims, never hear about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from his overt policies in the White House, imagine what kind of appointments he would make to his cabinet and other top government jobs where policy is made and enforced in ways that most people, aside from the direct victims, never hear about.

Do we need to recap all of of the skeletons in Hillary's closet (real and figurative)? As for McCain, what about his membership in the Keating Five, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, his carbon credit proposal, and the fact that he graduated 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy? There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks.

As for the Chicago bashing, look at your own communities before you criticize our politics here. Chicago politics is no more corrupt than local politics anywhere. It's just more transparent here. Dead people voted in Texas in 1960, too, and dare I mention Florida in 2000? Tony Rezkos exist everywhere (he's really just a small-time player, not that unusual), and the other candidates have their equivalents. The difference here is that, in one of our better moments a few years ago, we elected a real maverick senator (Peter Fitzgerald) who played the game like a pro and got us a politically-unconnected federal prosecutor who, in his better moments, has made some real progress in attacking the corruption culture that is pervasive in local politics everywhere.

As for Samantha Power, whatever else she said, she was right about Hillary. Do you have such short memories that you can't remember what it was like from 1993-2001? OBL did most of his planning and plotting while Clinton was president, and Bill was the one who could have taken care of him in 1996 but let him go, since he was too busy working on one of his annual historic Middle East peace agreements at the time.

Both presumptive nominees are flawed candidates for different reasons. McCain is too much of a hothead and the danger with him is that he'll fight the wrong battle or overcommit our already-stretched military. He needs a deal-making VP who can keep him in line and let him out when his temper will be an advantage (just like Andrew Jackson had Martin Van Buren). Obama has being calm and collected down to a science, but has a few too many radical friends for comfort. He can use a general or a business leader as a VP to draw him closer to the mainstream and weather the inevitable crises. The good news is that the next president (either of the two) has a good chance of being a one-termer. Maybe the parties can give us some better candidates in 2012. The GOP is in disarray and is on the cusp of another (hopefully productive) remake, while the Democratic nomination process has revealed the cracks in their fragile coalition. It's very possible we'll see a realignment within both parties over the next 10 years, just as what happened in the 1960s when the current structure took shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Please keep stating the truth about the no-good, powerlusting Obama, Mr. Bucko."

For goodness' sake, don't rely on me. I've simply passed on what I've read at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ and sites it links to (supplemented, occasionally, by Michelle Malkin). Read Little Green Footballs -- it's worth a visit every day!

I do visit it LGF regularly! :)

Apparently Obama's fundraiser at the home of the Weather Underground terrorists is a matter of public record. It's been picked up by Ann Coulter and (as I recall) National Review -- people with bad premises; but I'm confident they do far more extensive fact-checking than the leftist mainstream media.

Unlike the generally reliable news items it passes on, today Little Green Footballs has a link to a somewhat speculative article (clearly identified as such) raising the possibility that Obama is on drugs (cocaine and/or amphetamines). It does give supporting evidence: Obama's claim that he's visited 57 of the 59 states is only one of a long chain of manic misstatements. With his messianic pretensions, the little would-be dictator does seem to fit the pattern:

It's worth noting here the correlation between narcissism and stimulant drug abuse. Obambi exhibits an almost pathological narcissism, an ego wildly out of proportion to anything he has actually accomplished in his life. Someone with this personality defect is drawn to irrationally risky behavior because of a conviction of invulnerability, or superhuman superiority.

[...]

I don't think I would go as far as pinning a drug problem on him, although I have no expertise in this area. He doesn't appear to jerk or twitch or touch his face very much, which I understand is a sign of the kind of neurosis that accompanies cocaine use. But, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out he drinks a lot of coffee and that that was responsible for some jumpiness on his part. He spends far too much time in the company of the press and his campaign to liaise secretly with a dealer.

More broadly, however, I think his misstatements are consistent with the behavior of people who characteristically evade facts to suit their irrational ideas. "If identity is going to stand in the way of 'helping' the needy and the poor and expanding my power, then to hell with facts. A will not be A but rather whatever I wish it to be." An epistemological policy of this sort, leads to further and further distortion and embellishment, which Hillary Clinton is also guilty of (remember her Bosnian gunfire comments).

But, I don't wish to defend Obama at all. The kind of America-hatred he represents is too wild to be sanctioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from his overt policies in the White House, imagine what kind of appointments he would make to his cabinet and other top government jobs where policy is made and enforced in ways that most people, aside from the direct victims, never hear about.

Do we need to recap all of of the skeletons in Hillary's closet (real and figurative)? As for McCain, what about his membership in the Keating Five, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, his carbon credit proposal, and the fact that he graduated 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy? There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks.

What "ad hominem attacks"? What difference does McCain's class rank matter now (especially since he became a "war hero" by spending the duration of the war in capitivity being tortured)? What does the "Keating Five" bank scandal have to do with appointments that the next president will make to key positions in government?

As for the Chicago bashing, ...

"Chicago" became a symbol for voting by the dead many decades ago; it doesn't mean there isn't corruption anywhere else.

McCain is too much of a hothead and the danger with him is that he'll fight the wrong battle or overcommit our already-stretched military. He needs a deal-making VP who can keep him in line and let him out when his temper will be an advantage (just like Andrew Jackson had Martin Van Buren).

A vice president keeping any president "in line" is wishful thinking. Vice presidents are notoriously ineffective and out of the realm of policy decisions unless the president explicitly wants him involved. McCain's temper is not relevant to the issue of government appoinments.

Obama has being calm and collected down to a science, but has a few too many radical friends for comfort. He can use a general or a business leader as a VP to draw him closer to the mainstream and weather the inevitable crises.

More wishful thinking on behalf of Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from his overt policies in the White House, imagine what kind of appointments he would make to his cabinet and other top government jobs where policy is made and enforced in ways that most people, aside from the direct victims, never hear about.

Do we need to recap all of of the skeletons in Hillary's closet (real and figurative)? As for McCain, what about his membership in the Keating Five, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, his carbon credit proposal, and the fact that he graduated 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy? There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks.

What "ad hominem attacks"? What difference does McCain's class rank matter now (especially since he became a "war hero" by spending the duration of the war in capitivity being tortured)? What does the "Keating Five" bank scandal have to do with appointments that the next president will make to key positions in government?

Here is some information that might help put McCain's class rank in proper perspective. The following excerpt decribes McCain's Senate win in 1986.

The final days of the campaign were ripe with foreshadowing.

On November 2, two days before the election, R.W. Apple, Jr., of The New York Times all but conceded McCain the Senate seat, saying he "now seems poised to emerge as a significant figure in national politics."

The following day the Republic carried a less flattering article on its lead local page. It said that McCain and six other congressman who had received campaign contributions from Charles Keating had aided a Keating thrift--Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine California--in a bitter battle with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

On Election Day, November 4, as the fifth man from the bottom in the Naval Academy Class of 1958 was being swept into the United States Senate, the number one man in that same class, White House National Security Adviser John Poindexter, was on the verge of ruin. A bizarre tale drifting out of the Middle East said that the Reagan administration had been trading arms to Iran in return for Americans held hostage there. Poindexter was about to be engulfed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the Watergate of the 1980s. (John McCain: An American Odyssey by Robert Timberg, p. 166)

(Bold is mine.)

Obama is a non-issue as far as I am concerned and he will not get my vote. What concerns me is who is McCain going to appoint into the government and how much influence will McFarlane(also a Naval Academy graduate and a key player in Iran-Contra) have once McCain becomes President? McFarlane's ideas on foreign policy and energy independence through organizations like Set America Free are a concern and should probably be discussed in a thread of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from his overt policies in the White House, imagine what kind of appointments he would make to his cabinet and other top government jobs where policy is made and enforced in ways that most people, aside from the direct victims, never hear about.

Do we need to recap all of of the skeletons in Hillary's closet (real and figurative)? As for McCain, what about his membership in the Keating Five, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, his carbon credit proposal, and the fact that he graduated 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy? There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks.

What "ad hominem attacks"? What difference does McCain's class rank matter now (especially since he became a "war hero" by spending the duration of the war in capitivity being tortured)? What does the "Keating Five" bank scandal have to do with appointments that the next president will make to key positions in government?

Here is some information that might help put McCain's class rank in proper perspective. The following excerpt decribes McCain's Senate win in 1986.

On Election Day, November 4, as the fifth man from the bottom in the Naval Academy Class of 1958 was being swept into the United States Senate, the number one man in that same class, White House National Security Adviser John Poindexter, was on the verge of ruin. A bizarre tale drifting out of the Middle East said that the Reagan administration had been trading arms to Iran in return for Americans held hostage there. Poindexter was about to be engulfed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the Watergate of the 1980s. (John McCain: An American Odyssey by Robert Timberg, p. 166)
(Bold is mine.)

How does this make McCain's "class rank" relevent?

Obama is a non-issue as far as I am concerned and he will not get my vote.

How could Obama possibly by a "non-issue"? He is running for president and apparently has a good chance to win.

What concerns me is who is McCain going to appoint into the government and how much influence will McFarlane (also a Naval Academy graduate and a key player in Iran-Contra) have once McCain becomes President? McFarlane's ideas on foreign policy and energy independence through organizations like Set America Free are a concern and should probably be discussed in a thread of its own.

McCain would make a lot of bad appointments and is known for supporting all kinds of viro causes and statism. Why the focus on McFarlane in particular, who will by 71, as if he were more important than Obama or McCain or anyone else they may appoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

Obama is a non-issue as far as I am concerned and he will not get my vote. What concerns me is who is McCain going to appoint into the government and how much influence will McFarlane(also a Naval Academy graduate and a key player in Iran-Contra) have once McCain becomes President? McFarlane's ideas on foreign policy and energy independence through organizations like Set America Free are a concern and should probably be discussed in a thread of its own.

Given that the only candidates with a realistic possibility of getting elected in November are McCain and Obama, and you've already ruled out voting for Obama, then it basically is irrelevant for purpose of the election who McCain will appoint to government. It seems as if you have already accepted that McCain and his baggage are a better alternative than Obama and his.

That said, I agree that either candidate will present some major issues. I haven't yet made a decision (though it's basically moot given that I'm not in a swing state), but one thing I'm aware is that whomever gets elected will be dealing with the Democratic Congress, perhaps one with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That could change the dynamic entirely, allowing Obama carte blanche, or hamstringing McCain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from his overt policies in the White House, imagine what kind of appointments he would make to his cabinet and other top government jobs where policy is made and enforced in ways that most people, aside from the direct victims, never hear about.

Do we need to recap all of of the skeletons in Hillary's closet (real and figurative)? As for McCain, what about his membership in the Keating Five, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, his carbon credit proposal, and the fact that he graduated 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy? There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks.

What "ad hominem attacks"? What difference does McCain's class rank matter now (especially since he became a "war hero" by spending the duration of the war in capitivity being tortured)? What does the "Keating Five" bank scandal have to do with appointments that the next president will make to key positions in government?

Here is some information that might help put McCain's class rank in proper perspective. The following excerpt decribes McCain's Senate win in 1986.

On Election Day, November 4, as the fifth man from the bottom in the Naval Academy Class of 1958 was being swept into the United States Senate, the number one man in that same class, White House National Security Adviser John Poindexter, was on the verge of ruin. A bizarre tale drifting out of the Middle East said that the Reagan administration had been trading arms to Iran in return for Americans held hostage there. Poindexter was about to be engulfed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the Watergate of the 1980s. (John McCain: An American Odyssey by Robert Timberg, p. 166)
(Bold is mine.)

How does this make McCain's "class rank" relevent?

Class rank determines the order in which Naval Academy graduates pick their billets. Class rank is determined by a combination of academics, military performance, sports, room appearance, etc. Since John Poindexter was number one, we can assume that his GPA was somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0. John McCain's GPA would have had to at least been 2.0. Being 5th from the bottom, most likely the only thing keeping him from being last were the number of demerits he recieved. Examples, might have been a smudge on his shoes during Plebe year, an unmade Rack(a rack is a Midshipman's bed), an unclean sink, breaking curfew among other things.

Each class goes through what is called service selection night. On that night, the number of billets are posted. For simplicity, let's say in 1958 there were 15% Naval Air billets, 10% Marine Corps, 25% submarine, and 50% surface warfare billets available. John Poindexter being number one picks first. As each person in the next rank picks, certain billets start to disappear and the choices available for those at the bottom are not good. With that said, I would like to know starting with the Class of 1958, how many graduates 5th from the bottom still had Naval Aviation as a choice. In other words, we have 50 years of graduates to look at, what percentage of the bottom 10% of each class were able to choose Naval Aviation? This is just one reason why "class rank" is relevent.

Another reason class rank is relevent is to look at the careers of John McCain and John Poindexter. They graduated from the same class, one at the top, one at the bottom. Both were involved in a scandal at the same time involving ethics. How did they react and how did they deal with this adversity? If anything, it shows that McCain is a fighter and has overcome great adversity in his life. I disagree with alot of his ideas but I can admire him for the fact that he has fought for his values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites