That is a completely insane idea.

And they got divorced, what 28 years ago? And the divorce was amicable? WTF, over?

Old news. No news infact. Drivel.

My dad got a divorce after four years in WWII. When he got back he was changed, and so was his wife. He hardly knew his son who had been an infant, and he just wanted to start over. I don't think it's a big deal, nor do I think there's an obligation to stay married -- especially to someone you no longer love. Whether the person is crippled, fat, or not is irrelevant.

If what McCain did was immoral, then divorce is immoral.

The people who carp about this tend to be "conservative" McCain haters like Ted Sampley -- a loon who for years has been relentlessly promoting the crackpot theory that McCain is a traitor:

http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm

What ought to matter is not what mentally ill "conservatives" think about the divorce, but what the parties themselves think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_McCain

Despite the divorce, Carol McCain has remained on good terms with John McCain,[24] and has supported him in all his subsequent political campaigns.[1] She refused to discuss her marriage with an election opponent of McCain's in 1982 who was seeking negative information about him, telling the opponent that "a gentleman never would have called."[30] She supports her ex-husband's 2008 presidential campaign, and told The Mail on Sunday in June 2008 that she was not bitter and that, "He's a good guy. We are still good friends. He is the best man for president."[1]

I wouldn't consider being invited onto the campaign trail a reward for Carol. Ouch.

You guys are forgetting John Edwards, before Reille. His claim to fame was that he was a good family man and it got him a significant number of votes. Now with the Reille thing he may not even get to speak at the D convention.

This is not about rewarding Carol. It is about removing an issue from the table.

I have been in situations where I have come in contact with an old flame while married and my mate has been OK with that.

In any case I'd say the circumstances around McCain's behavior were tawdry. He has gotten negative press from it. I have read a number of bits and none were complimentary. In fact the above quotes from the pieces I quoted were edited to place John in the best light. There is worse out there. Do a search and read the whole articles.

And Eric - those were some of the wiki bits I looked at. :-) but if you do a Google search there is worse out there. The Time Magazine bit on Carol is a case in point.

It is about character. If Carol was on stage with him it would defuse the whole issue.

Let me add that my girl friend before I met my wife and my wife were good friends for a number of years.

Let me add that Ross Perot who paid Carol's medical bills still has a grudge against McCain. What is to stop him from doing a 527 on this issue?

So you're saying that Carol "deserves" to be trotted around the country for a political dog-and-pony show? She "deserves" to be subjected to the harsh glare of publicity surrounding a presidential campaign? Please. That would be the height of rudeness and arrogance.

Are you seriously telling us that your opinion of McCain would go UP if he so used his first wife? My opinion of his character would go down if he asked her to cast herself into the spotlight for his political gain. Good Lord...

If it has not worked yet, I doubt it will. For every Rep scandal, there are at least 2 of the Dems. And I vote Dem. all they have to say is "Ted Kennedy and John Edwards". As far as Obama, I find it a bit strange that there is a basic code of silence amongst his Harvard friends.

As for what this reveals about his character, I don't think I'm qualified to judge another man for his actions after spending 6 years being tortured in the jungles of North Vietnam. I could certainly not care less what Ross Perot, the man responsible for President Bill Clinton's election, thinks about John McCain. If he wants to waste his money trying to get Barack Obama elected, that's his business; it's a free country. Nobody, and certainly nobody seeking the presidency of the United States of America, should kow-tow to that kind of threat, however.

Sexual attraction is a very strange thing. Marriage without it, for a young person, is empty. No one can explain it, although Playboy tries to provide desirable prototypes of the female sex.

If America is up for a black president, a woman president, a gay president (?), well at least gay civil unions out in the open--wtfq is the problem with a divorced president? It's not as if divorce is unknown in the general population.

My father was a POW for six years in North Vietnam. It was a terrible experience for both the prisoners and their families. Many POWs returned to be greeted by divorce lawyers and many more ended up divorced later on. My family's experience was extremely painful and although my parents remained married until my mother's death it was a rough road. No one who did not live through this experience has any business criticizing those who did. If Sen. McCain was able to keep his marriage alive for six years after his return he was doing far better than average.

Sexual attraction is a very strange thing. Marriage without it, for a young person, is empty. No one can explain it, although Playboy tries to provide desirable prototypes of the female sex.

If America is up for a black president, a woman president, a gay president (?), well at least gay civil unions out in the open--wtfq is the problem with a divorced president? It's not as if divorce is unknown in the general population.

"All this will probably come out as the election progresses"? Of course it will, it already has, repeatedly, and will continue to do so. You are quite late to the party!

M. Simon, How did it come about that Ross Perot paid Carol's medical bills? Do you know?

I'm also wondering how McCain could afford two houses on military pay, but that's another story.

Should Carol go up on stage with McCain when he's on campaign?

Why doesn't someone ask her how she feels about it? It's not like she's a vegetable; I don't have a dog in this fight, but if she really is pro-McCain for the White House, she really does accept why he divorced her and on balance, still supports him, why not let her make the decision.

And if she decides not to, then this will also tell the electorate something.

If what McCain did was immoral, then divorce is immoral.
Well, no. If adultery is immoral, then what McCain did was immoral.

What ought to matter is not what mentally ill "conservatives" think about the divorce, but what the parties themselves think
How about the voters? Could what we think matter, please?

Hearing the way McCain treated his first wife is stomach-turning, and learning that he got into politics at the prompting of his trophy wife's father doesn't inspire confidence, either.

Lucky for him, he's running against the worst major-party candidate in over 30 years.

"What is to stop him from doing a 527 on this issue?"

Um, Carol, perhaps? Why would she consent to that if she's backing McCain?

Please, inhale, people!

I don't understand, "this is going to hurt".

You have to be living as an ostrich not to have heard all this before, indeed many years ago.

Why talk about this as if there are new revelations?

I know I need to go back and recheck some facts, but let me run from memory --

John and Carol were married for less than 2 years (IIRC) when he went to Vietnam. Does that matter? Of course it does in the lay out of how many marriages fall / fell apart after the first couple years even without 1) military involvement 2) going to war 3) being in prison camp more years than you were physically present in a marriage 4) serious trauma to both spouses.

A really snarky article in an English tabloid last month made great currency out of victimizing Carol McCain ... but they quoted her a couple times as clearly stating the reason she met with them was to support John. Nice sleaze there, tab.

I have a fuzzy recall of that article or another at he time mentioning that McCain (while Perot may have covered bills while McCain was a POW) covers Carol's medical bills.

The tabloid made snarky comments about her moving (having to move?) to the "faded resort" of Virginia Beach, and her old Mercedes. The picture of her getting out of her car would lead me to believe most of us would trade all our cars in a heart beat for her "old Mercedes."

Also mentioned in the article was the point that Carol McCain was married previously to one of John's fellow Navy acquaintances (father of first two sons) and got divorced -- and married John. No mention of who was to "blame" there. John McCain took responsibility for the boys from her first marriage.

I am not justifying behavior, I just think it is interesting that people want to make Carol the victim forever, when she has seemingly made peace with herself and John and does not want that. It is a real act of Monday morning self righteousness to look back and dissect a marriage and divorce without knowing really what happened.

In closing, my husband and I have been listening to McCain's "Worth the Fighting For" Two things of interest strike me so far: He did know that he was in all likelihood not going to get an Admiralty, because he was unable to meet some of the qualifications in spite of his intensive PT and his return to flight status. His reasoning for muscling into the War College (which he admits in words to that effect) had to do with a need to understand the Vietnam War, what happened, and how it happened. That's more evidence for me that he would be the man for the job in the next four years as we are involved in the Middle East and WOT.

In that book John McCain unequivocally states that the divorce was his fault, not the military's, or Carol's. Say what you will, he's not blaming the media, his subordinates, the cashier at the grocery store, his minister, his grandmother, or anyone else who seems to be the cause of other candidates (and president's) questionable decisions.

Recognizing that divorce is an unpleasnat and sad reality, a thing in most cases to be grieved, it still is a bit weird to me that American serial polygamists want to make a big deal out of this old news when a person who was a serial sex offender was given a pass.

And what Democrat who defended Bill Clinton could possibly make an issue of this? Seems only those who condemnded Clinton could. That pretty much leaves Lieberman.

Per Wiki "Carol McCain told The Mail on Sunday in June 2008 that she was not bitter and that, "He’s a good guy. We are still good friends. He is the best man for president."

End of non-story.

Julia Thorne was unavailable for comment.

Ok, I grant that the overlap between McCain's first and second doesn't exactly shower him in glory, but the Dems were perfectly happy with Kerry and his various, uh, marital and military indiscretions.

Why the fuss over McCain?

> then divorce is immoral.

Well, if you follow the bible, yes (e.g. Mark 10:9 "What God has joined, let no man sunder").

If you don't, then maybe not.

PatHMV,

I'm saying she deserves it because she is into politics and it would help John.

She worked for Ronald Reagan.

And I also believe she should only do it if she wants to and is asked.

McCain is running in part on his bio. I personally have no trouble with these events. Humans are humans. I wrote this because I saw a comment about it (negative) this morning on a Pajama's blog

And yes. I'm late to the party.

First, McCain's cheating on his first wife was bad, but less bad than Bill Clinton. Second, divorce and remarriage ... how can a press that gave Kerry (a Catholic, was his first marriage annulled? or his second, not a church marriage? I don't recall reading) no trouble, cause trouble for McCain?

Well, for pro-life conservatives, his cheating and divorce mean he is, and will always be, less inspiring. So the Dems will push to demonize McCain on this, and reduce his support, and McCain will lose some volunteers (I'll vote for him, but not ask others to...)

I think McCain should ask Carol to help, and have a single big conference show, and end it.

Yes, McCain's treatment of Carol troubles me, but since my vote for him will serve only to block Obama and the Dems, it doesn't change anything for me.

Yes, McCain's treatment of Carol troubles me, but since my vote for him will serve only to block Obama and the Dems, it doesn't change anything for me.

I think your use of "She deserves [to be brought along for a while on the campaign trail]" may have been a poor choice of words. I agree that she should have the opportunity, if desired, to speak out in support of her former husband, but I also seem to feel that if she wanted to be more vocal and in the public eye there's little stopping her now. The fact that she has only spoken of the Senator and his campaign when directly asked does not to me indicate that this is anything other than her own desire to keep the past private.

There is a big difference between a coverup (such as Sen. Edwards is alleged to be involved with) and simply being discreet about the private issues of a matter on which public records are easilly available. While the public can rightfully be unforgiving on the former when it wants, I think it is equally understanding of the latter.

I understand Carol divorced her first husband to marry John McCain. Life is often complicated.

Its already come up a few times. And the Daily Mail is quite a bit off. McCain completely cops to being responsible for the break up and he knows his actions were not grand.

I like the idea of Carol campaigning with John, however, I expect that John is very concerned, rightly so, that the MSM would make it very uncomfortable for Carol. It's not too hard to imagine how that would happen. I expect John would try to protect Carol.

If I were her, I would not do it unless a media circus would be precluded.

Why this matters? Four words: honor, integrity, cheating, hypocrisy.

If he cheated on his devoted wife, whom else would he cheated on?

However, if only those, and nobody else, who have cheated on their spouses and/or have divorced voted for McCain, he would have won a landslide.

"I'm also wondering how McCain could afford two houses on military pay, but that's another story."

Simple. Buy a house where you are stationed, and rent it out when you get transferred to another location, or buy a fixer-upper, fix it up, rent it out.

The POWs and families went through an incredible amount of stress; a lot of marriages don't hold up. Just like a lot of marriages don't hold up under the stress of illness or financial difficulties.

This is pretty damned simple. McCain threw his first wife and mother of us children under the bridge to pursue his own narcissistic sexual satisfaction with other women. He said that Carol would be a burden to him in his career ambitions because of her accident, and that Cindy would be of help to him because of her money, health, and beauty. Well, this is not exactly what one expects of someone preaching self-sacrifice and "country first". McCain's motto seems to be "self first" when it comes to making any real and willing sacrifices.

We have to remember that McCain's time as a POW was not a willing sacrifice. He obviously had no intention of being shot down and captured and tortured. He endured it out of necessity. When it came time to actually make some sacrifices for the sake of others out of personal choice, as in staying with his wife and children rather than chasing after a rich heiress, he chose not to make any sacrifices. His children held deep resentments towards him for many, many years to come. He behaved like an ass, and even admits it. It's hard to see any actual choice McCain has made in his life as self-sacrificing, rather than pursuing self-interest. Even joining the military was not self-sacrificing on his part, but the pursuit of glory and ambition aided in large part by his family's connections, which allowed him to party his way through the Naval Academy without studying, graduating 895th in a class of 899 when anyone whose father and grandfather were not 4-star admirals would have been kicked out on their ass. McCain was an intelligent guy, and could have learned how to be a really good pilot, but he was never willing to sacrifice to put in the hard work necessary, and so he never became anything more than a mediocre pilot who crashed at least five airplanes in his career, including getting shot down in Vietnam. He finally had to be grounded because he was clearly such a bad pilot who couldn't be trusted with expensive hardware. Then he capitalizes on his celebrity and his wife's money to get into the senate, where again he never does the hard work of actually learning policy, but glides by on charm and style. And now he thinks he deserves to be made President? Christ, the guy's a piece of work, my friend. Open your eyes.

Hogarth:

Er, maybe not. Matthew 19:11.

We have to remember that McCain's time as a POW was not a willing sacrifice. He obviously had no intention of being shot down and captured and tortured. He endured it out of necessity. When it came time to actually make some sacrifices for the sake of others out of personal choice

It's hard to see any actual choice McCain has made in his life as self-sacrificing, rather than pursuing self-interest.

Um, no.

He refused early release from his torturers in North Vietnam until everyone he was with was able to go home.

The rest of your post? Spittle.

You fail.

Sorry but that is misguided in the extreme.

The divorce followed his return from being locked in a cage for 5 years and refusing preferential treatment offered to him because it would not be offered to everyone else.

He was not obligated to act as if everything had remained the same, and even his former wife gets that.

His natural inclination to live some of the life denied to him is understandable to anyone but a judgmental prig or modern day Calvanist. He didn't become an alcoholic, a druggie, a bitter man or a burden. He honorably parted with his assets and moved on as he had a right to do.

conradg- my golden retriever I thought left the biggest ole greasy dumps, but you my friend have covered the whole block. Are you one of those aliens (the outer space kind, from a parallel universe) that will be voting???

So much for the party of values.

Conrad, no doubt you voted for Clinton and Kerry. And you have the nerve to question morality and motives? Why didn't those things matter then? Talk about a piece of work! Actually look in the mirror. No, don't. You'll scare yourself . . .

I thought it was the religious right that is supposed to be holier than thou?

Adultery - but I guess you family values types never heard of it! or get tired of it

he was an asshole and they dont change stripes.

There are two grades of adultery. One is bad: there are no minor children. One is worse: there are.

So McCain is a Grade 1 adulterer. Maybe that will change the vote of a few married women. It doesn't tip the balance for me; if McCain is (in many ways) not my friend, Obama is my enemy.

Let me ask those who call McCain a hypocrite and an a-hole because of that divorce:

During the five years he was a POW, was there a marriage, for all practical purposes? Remember, he had no companion but a bunch of thugs who did who knows what on him!

When he finally returned home and encountered her, don't you realize they both had no functional marriage? Ask yourselves: if you are married to someone you don't see for five or six years, what marriage is going on there? Sure, they might have wanted to patch it up afterwards, but really - wasn't it over before they even started to try? They both had changed! You can never go back!

I'd like to point you all to Ingrid Betancourt, one of the Colombian hostages rescued by the Colombian Army in that hidden raid not long ago. When she finally returned to her husband... What husband? Even he realized there was no marriage there! Just watch for divorce proceedings in the future.

People seem to expect for marital loyalty out of The Odyssey, but reality is very different from an epic fictional poem. Traumatic experiences such as the ones endured by McCain and Betancourt take too long to shake out of the system. Many times, those experiences change you irretrievably: in many cases, it never lets go of you. The person you once were may never exist again.

Seriously, who the hell are you to judge him? Put yourself on his POW shoes for a change! Oh, that's right: you can't.

Anon, your post is full of mistakes--too many to address, but here are a couple. When McCain entered the Academy, his grandfather was dead, and his father was only a captain. McCain's little brother washed out of the academy after their father made admiral, so having an admiral for a dad is no guarantee of anything.

McCain did not crash five airplanes.

It's fine if you don't like McCain, but please base your dislike on facts, not on hearsay you parroted from the comment thread at HuffPo.

The story of his divorce is very sad. As biographer Timberg said, if any two people deserved to make it, it was those two. He rightfully takes the blame.

It's somewhat reassuring to me that he's close to all seven of his kids, and his widely admired first wife likes him and supports him politically. His 28-year second marriage to another widely admired woman seems solid.

It took his oldest two kids years to get over the hurt, but since then McCain has been able to have a close relationship with them, even though he is not the biological father. His oldest son became a naval aviator like Dad, and his second oldest son works for Cindy selling beer.

All seven of his kids seem to have turned out very well so far.

Sorry. My first comment should be addressed to conradg.

Ex-wife of 28 years joins candidate and wife of 28 years on campaign trail. E-E-E-W-W-W-W-!!!!!!! What are you,nuts?

Seriously, the business of the divorce is nobody's business but the couple's, except insofar as a party's conduct may be a comment on his character. McCain doesn't come out looking too good, but in his favor he has always been TOTALLY upfront about the fact that his personal failings and infidelity cost him his marriage, and takes full blame. If his ex-wife is gracious and generous towards him, and his kids have turned out well (as they certainly appear to have done), it's not a public issue. (Worth noting: Carol was married and had children when she met the bachelor John McCain, so she knows how the world turns in that department.)

Ex-wife of 28 years joins candidate and wife of 28 years on campaign trail. E-E-E-W-W-W-W-!!!!!!! What are you,nuts?

Seriously, the business of the divorce is nobody's business but the couple's, except insofar as a party's conduct may be a comment on his character. McCain doesn't come out looking too good, but in his favor he has always been TOTALLY upfront about the fact that his personal failings and infidelity cost him his marriage, and takes full blame. If his ex-wife is gracious and generous towards him, and his kids have turned out well (as they certainly appear to have done), it's not a public issue. (Worth noting: Carol was married and had children when she met the bachelor John McCain, so she knows how the world turns in that department.)

Eric, the woman who was once a tall, slender and beautiful model is much older, continues to have major physical problems and just doesn't begin to stack up looks-wise with Cindy McCain. That doesn't matter to me but the press would have a field day with it, destroying her hard-preserved dignity.

Why on earth would you want to pressure her into rounds of public appearances that are most likely to be painful in many ways for her?

"One way to neuter this would be for him to bring Carol along with him for a while on the campaign trail. I hope he does."

Bad, bad idea. Very few people could avoid thinking he was using her as a campaign prop.

Better to just leave things as they are.

"He refused early release from his torturers in North Vietnam until everyone he was with was able to go home."

Come off it. If McCain had accepted the offers of the North Vietnamese, his military career, and any hope of a political career, would have been utterly and irrevocably destroyed. Nor could the man's pride possibly accept such a thing.

BTW, I'm not saying McCain is a total asshole, just a partial asshole. Yes, he suffered, but so did his wife, in a terrible car accident. Yet he had no sympathy for what she had to go through. She lost her beauty through the accident, and so McCain lost interest in her. this is not "understandable" except by people looking to make excuses for a guy who shows no loyalty except where it gets him something in return. He could have been an honorable man and stayed with his wife and kids.

If you think I'm being harsh on him, how about Nancy Reagan, who dismissed McCain as a slug for what he did to his wife. She had the decency to help her out and get her a job, but she never forgave McCain for what he did to her, and neither did Ronald Reagan. They considered McCain to be a crass dude out for himself only.

And yes, personally I think divorcing one's wife because she has an accident and isn't as sexy anymore is the approach of a slug, a sinner who cares about nothing but himself. Marriage vows matter. "in sickness and in health" matters. She was willing to stick it out with John even though he was obviously not in the greatest shape due to his POW experience, but he couldn't do the same, out of sheer lust and ambition. If he'd stuck with his wife and kids, he'd be a far better person for it, and I'd consider voting for him. As it is, I don't see how he deserves it.

Newton,

I'm not anonymous. I got all my info from public records. McCain crashed his first plane while still in flight school in 1958. He graduated anyway, due to some help from family influence. It should also be noted that he never would have gotten into flight school in the first place, given his lousy records and grades, without family influence. He then crashed a plane into power lines in Spain. Then he crashed another plane, ejecting at 1,000 feet. In Vietnam he lost a plane in the Forrestal fire (not his fault), and then another over Vietnam when he was captured. Finally, after coming back he put great pressure on his superiors to regain flight status, it was granted, and he reportedly crashed once again in a single engine plane. I say "reportedly" because public records seem to have been washed of this mishap. It could easily be cleared up by the release of McCain's military records, which McCain could do at any time. Why doesn't he release these records? If he's such a hero, why shouldn't we see what the records have to say about his military service. Well, I think we both know that there's a lot of damning material in there McCain never wants to see the light of day.

And no, this material is not found at Huffpo. I got most at Wikipedia and a few other sites. One thing I notice is that McCain's wikipedia site has been purged of any mention of the last crash by McCain supporters. Amusing. Maybe you could ask McCain to release his military records to clear up any misconceptions, seeing as how you are so interested in the truth?

conradg · August 7, 2008 06:59 PM

I'm sorry, but that wasn't the question that I asked. Read again.

Oh, one more thing I must ask: do you honestly trust Wikipedia for your research?

I don't.

conradg
"It should also be noted that he never would have gotten into flight school in the first place, given his lousy records and grades."

Getting into flight school has little to do with 'records and grades', and much to do with exams and physical tests specifically related to flying skills. Last in class at the Academy has no objective influence on first in class for the legendary 'Wings of Gold'.

Other notes: Sen McCain's two eldest children are from Carol's first marriage, whom the Senator adopted after the marriage. And one of the two works for the current Mrs McCain.

Cheers

People seem to expect for marital loyalty out of The Odyssey, but reality is very different from an epic fictional poem.

Very true! (And, nota bene, Ulysses did cheat on Penelope with Calypso, but Penelope took him back gladly.

We had a somewhat similar trauma in my family. My uncle, whom I never knew, was a WWII bomber pilot. After the war, so my family has told me, he came back a changed man, and not for the better. He deserted my aunt and their young son, then lured her with a promise of reconciliation to one of the U.S. states where the law at the time did not require any alimony or child support to be paid in case of a divorce. It was a pity and a shame. But it happened.

The simple fact of being divorced has no discernible bearing on what kind of President a man or woman would make. It made no difference to Ronald Reagan's Presidency that I can think of. And we've had actually adulterous Presidents -- John F. Kennedy comes to mind. Would he have been a better President if he'd kept it in his pants? I doubt it. Mr. and the former Mrs. McCain have made peace with their situation, put it behind them, and moved on. So, I think, should we.

"McCain crashed his first plane while still in flight school in 1958. He graduated anyway, due to some help from family influence. It should also be noted that he never would have gotten into flight school in the first place, given his lousy records and grades, without family influence."

Back then, all you had to do was pass the physical to get into flight school. Do you have evidence that his father was the only reason he got in? If you do, please provide it.

In flight school, the engine failed, and he crashed into Corpus Christi Bay. Do you have proof, or even any evidence, that he only continued with flight school due to his dad's influence? Please cite your evidence, and "some say" is not a source.

Please cite your evidence for any of this, if you can.

At least you admit that the Forrestal incident was not his fault, but you had already included it in your stupid count of five crashes, along with the shootdown on the low-level run over Hanoi. Hundreds of other pilots were shot down over N Vietnam, and for you to belittle a shootdown as just another crash marks you as creep. You insulted all the other pilots who were killed or captured doing the same thing.

Shame on you.

Conrad: I know those websites where you got that stupid "five crashes" meme.

Do not--I repeat--do not ever again try to peddle that idiocy. Several other pilots died in the Forrestal incident, but by saying that McCain "crashed" his plane, you imply that they "crashed" their planes too. What a horrible insult.

And again, don't ever again belittle a combat shootdown as just another crash, or you insult the memory of all who perished that way. Really, just don't do it. Creep.

I actually think that the best thing for McCain would be for Obama and other Democrats to adopt the strategy outlined by "conradg", that is, go after him on his military record.

It'll make them look like complete idiots. The American public knows the difference between McCain's service record and Obama sitting in Trinity United listening to Jeremiah Wright.

There are lots of areas where smart liberals can go after McCain. His military record isn't one of them.

So I say to Obama; fire your smart liberals!

It seems Carol McCain is working for Cindy. If this is true:

http://webofdeception.com/#carolsheppmccain

Interesting reactions to the simple facts. Look, McCain himself admits he was a lousy pilot. The navy considered his record so inept as to justify not giving him flight status that he desperately craved after he recovered from Vietnam, seeing him as accident prone. He admits he never much studied for flight school, or put in the work necessary to become a good pilot. It's not that he lacked intelligence or physical skills. He lacked the character and dedication required to master his profession. He loved being a flyboy and getting girls and partying. He simply didn't much care about "serving" his country when it came down to actually performing his job well. He admits to as much.

As for flight school, no it takes a helluva lot more than a physical to get into flight school. Tons of people in the Navy wants to be a flyer. It's the top of the top. It's highly competitive, and requires serious recommendations and grades and so forth. The choices are not made frivolously, as it involves being responsible for some extremely expensive machinery. McCain did lousy in school, and simply wasn't qualified by his own merits for the opportunity. What other factor might have swayed the navy to make him a naval flyer? Hmmmmm. Hard to say.

As for five losses of aircraft, yes, it's five. You want to lose the Forrestal, fine. That's four. The navy takes a history of such losses pretty seriously, seeing as how these planes don't come cheap. The look at patterns, and they see someone who perhaps isn't qualified to do his job. Kind of the way too many car crashes, even if they aren't all technically your fault, gets your license to drive revoked. A pattern of negligence becomes apparent. Good drivers, and good pilots, learn how to avoid these mistakes and problems. Bad pilots don't, and complain about bad breaks instead of blaming themselves and working hard to get it right.

For what it's worth, my uncle was an double-ace in WWII and took his job very seriously, and knew what it takes to do it right. He says he's seen guys like McCain all the time, and they were the guys who got you killed. McCain was a craven joy-boy who never did understand what it really takes to be a hero, who to this day still doesn't have what it takes, but likes to pretend he's the man. He's just a publicity hound who turned his POW notoreity into political and personal gain, getting connections and rich heiresses and then seducing the media into believing he knows what he's talking about, when clearly he does the same glib, slick job of ignoring the hard work of mastering policy and really thinking things through required of the job. He's not dumb or incapable, he's just never applied himself to the hard work necessary. He tries to get by on charm and patriotism, and it fools lots of people, like a lot of you here. But it doesn't fool everyone.

And I didn't hear anyone hear asking McCain to release his military records. What are you guys so afraid of? If you don't trust Wikipedia or any other sources on the web, why not just ask McCain to clear this up by releasing his military records? That shouldn't be a problem for a war hero, right? Then you can gloat all you like about what assholes us critics of McCain are. Until then, you're just being played for fools.

And newton, if there's a question I missed, why not repeat the question? And tell me why you won't call for McCain to release his records and confirm your fantasy about him?

conradg,

I'll take McCain the man with all his flaws and failures over The One.

You can be sure that no cult of personality is going to form around McCain.

conradg, you only degrade yourself with these puerile remarks. I'm not going to touch any of your crap with a ten-foot pole, except to say that you need a dictionary for proper use of the word "craven."

Oh, and while I hate changing the subject - as for records, I think it is really MUCH more important to see BO's real birth certificate to know if he is even eligible to run for President. That seems a little more relevant to the Presidential election than the status of John McCain's pilot's license.

Oh, and just "crashing planes" is actually not the horror you make out. See The Right Stuff and "the wrecked SNJs" being an accustomed part of pilot training costs. There would have to be context - but context, of course, is your enemy.

But if it will make you feel better - Dear Sen. McCain, if there is some documentation that will stifle this creep, why don't you put it out there if you feel like it?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it has been said. Well, I guess you are very dangerous because you have so very little knowledge. Your uncle's putative service is of course beyond mockery but it is puzzling to understand the lineage between him and yourself. You certainly don't honor his memory with these scurrilous, invidious characterizations.

Simon,

I think we have seen Obama's real birth certificate. But you do bring up the strange problem McCain has, that he's technically speaking probably not actually eligible to be President given his birth outside the country before congress acted to close that loophole.

Again, you can call my remarks puerile, but you don't dare accuse Nancy and Ronald Reagan of the same, even though they were much harsher about McCain's character.

Like I've said, I will be happy to be judged by McCain's own military records, when they are released. What I find a bit strange is that you want McCain to release his records only "if they stifle this little creep." But what if those records only confirm that I'm right? Do you want him to continue to keep them secret? I suspect that you do, that you'd rather put a lid on this whole matter if the truth isn't what you fantasize about McCain.

And btw, I don't think being an incompetent pilot is such a terrible thing. But electing an incompetent President is, as we have seen for the last eight years.

Nor do I really think McCain is all that terrible a guy. Just rather full of himself and not really suited to be President. He's a reckless, overrated hack, that's all.

conradg,

Could you give a cite where I called Ron and Nancy puerile on this subject? I don't recall having done that.

BTW the Panama issue is well settled. McCain's papers were properly filed. He is a citizen.

Nor do I really think McCain is all that terrible a guy. Just rather full of himself and not really suited to be President. He's a reckless, overrated hack, that's all.

I can see that Obama is not full of himself at all. So that is a comfort. And his attractioin to American terrorists and seeking out Marxists professors gives me the warm fuzzies. And I like his plan to raise taxes on the rich even if it lowers economic output and thus government revenue. The rich need to suffer. And lower economic output will let us all join in their economic suffering. I can see the advantages for the poor as well. Especially seeing that during times of lower output they suffer the most.

I like his plan for giving up on Iraq ready or not. Hundreds of Iraqis dying every week from internecine warfare might be a bother and it might cause oil prices to rise but at least the costs of the war would go to zero and no Americans would be dying. I mean who gives a fig about those wogs any way.

A win-win-win for all concerned.

Which is why Obama gives me the warm fuzzies.

So yeah. Our days will be bright with Obama and dark with McCain. I can see the future and he is The One We Have Been Waiting For. Just too glorious to contemplate. The rich can suffer with a few less dollars and the poor can go without food. They need to be on a diet anyway.

We will all be better for the experience.

Mr McCain yesterday dismissed questions over his eligibility, and noted the case of the Republican Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona in 1909 before it became a state but ran for the presidency in 1964 and eventually lost to Lyndon Johnson.

"Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory, Arizona was a territory, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court," he said. "And there's no doubt about that. And it was researched again in 2000."

"It's very clear that (the idea that) an American born in a territory of the United States whose father is serving in the military would not be eligible for the presidency of the United States is certainly not something our founding fathers envisioned," he insisted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3460276.ece

You really need to research these things better Conrad. I'd have more trust in the rest of what you say. As it is it looks to me like you just make things up. It does not speak well of you sir. Not well at all.

John McCain is also a racist, plain and simple. Just look at his history.

1. Used the word "Gooks" to describe the Vietnam people:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

2. Richard Quinn, a known racist writer and founder of "Southern Heritage" magazine is McCain's South Carolina spokesman.

3. McCain voted against the MLK Jr. national holiday.

4. McCain: racist, bigot & homophobe
August 1, 2008 - 7:14am.
By DOUG THOMPSON

John McCain, a member of the House of Representatives in the mid-1980s, often held court at a table near the bar at Bullfeathers, a popular Capitol Hill watering hole, telling jokes and matching hangers-on drink by drink.

As a Capitol Hill chief of staff, I often drank at Bullfeathers and was invited to join the throng at McCain's table one evening. A few minutes listening to the racism, bigotry and homophobia of the Arizona Congressman told me all I needed to know.

McCain loved to tell jokes about lesbians, blacks, Hispanics and the Vietnamese community that occupied a large section of Arlington County, Virginia, just south of the District of Columbia.

Of course, McCain didn't use polite language in the jokes: He used names like "fags" or "queers" or "dykes" or "niggers" or "spics" or "wetbacks" or "gooks."

Simon,

Regarding McCain's birth eligibility, there's this to consider:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

The issue is not whether he's a citizen, but whether he's a natural born citizen as specified in the Constitution and congress at the time of his birth. Goldwater's example was never tested by the courts. A strict constructionist judge of the type McCain claims to favor might easily declare him ineligible.

Also, I didn't say you called the Reagans puerile. Quite the opposite, I said that you didn't call them puerile, even though they had a very low opinion of McCain after he screwed over his first wife, and excluded him from their social circle. Why is it I'm puerile and they aren't for coming to the same conclusions about McCain's character?

As for your comparisons to Obama, that's all quite irrelevant on this matter. You can of course vote for McCain based on whatever issues matter to you, but don't pretend the guy is some kind of sterling character or has a great military record. Whatever you might say about Obama, he's a good, loyal family man who got where he is today on his own talents, not on family connections, abandoning of his wife and kids for a rich heiress, or celebrity. Obama rejected high paying jobs to actually serve others, and he's clearly of quite good character. It's clear from the campaign so far that it's McCain who is taking the low road, and lying over and over again, whereas Obama is avoiding that route. Not that you really care, I'm sure. This "disgust" at my bringing these things up I'm sure didn't in any way influence your vote for Bush against Kerry and the swiftboaters last time around.

And BTW Conrad,

We have not seen Obama's real BC with an embossed seal front and back. That is not going to fly.

Are they paying you to say stuff like that?

Hey. I'm against the MLK holiday. It raises costs. Now if they had exchanged it for another holiday I would have no problem. In fact I'd be totally for it since I marched and lobbied for civil rights in the 60s. It is a tax on business.

Conrad,

You are an idiot. I'm not pretending anything about McCain. Fred Thompson was my guy.

As to the BC: given the Goldwater precedent McCain is very, very, likely a natural born citizen. But I expect some one will take it up with the Supreme Court. So no worries. And I expect Obama will get the same treatment. All Obama has to do to put this one to rest is produce a paper copy. Verified by the Hawaii records dept.

Kerry was a despicable character for what he did in '71. Me and quite a few other Vets will not forgive him. It was his Communist friends in North Vietnam who gave orders to commit atrocities. On our side they sometimes happened and when brought to the attention of the command were punished.

BTW how could your attention to McCain now have affected my vote in '04?

Dude: you are terminally stupid. If you only had a brain.

Big Mike,

I can tell you have never been in the Navy.

And if calling people by unapproved names is racist well I guess there are a lot of racist niggers out there. If you can judge by rap music. And the way the Gs talk.

You know that kind of "you are a racist" crap is getting harder to sell every day.

Unless you think Jon Stewart has it in for kikes.

Whatever you might say about Obama, he's a good, loyal family man who got where he is today on his own talents,

Yeah a good family man all right. Sending his kids to a hate whitey church.

On his on talents? Nope - he got where he is today because he was backed by the Chicago machine. Tony Rezko. American terrorist Bill Ayres. etc. I lived in Chicago. You don't get anything from the machine without owing the machine.

Simon,

So you're saying that Bill Ayers and Rezko are responsible for Obama's rise to power? You sure you don't want to re-think that?

And you're now saying Obama isn't a good, loyal family man? Because you don't like the pastor of his church? Are you really that right-wing nutty?

John McCain, who cheats on his injured wife and abandons her and his kids for a young hot heiress is a good guy, but Obama, who loves his wife and doesn't cheat on her, is a creep? This is lovely logic, dude.

Also...

So you admit to supporting the lies and scurrilous crap about Kerry by the swiftboaters. That makes perfect sense. But you defend McCain's scumminess. He denounced the swift-boaters in 04 but now employs them. Just get the guy to release his military records and I'll be happy.

The fact that you originally back Fred Thompson doesn't mean you aren't a loyal party hack who will now defend McCain without bothering with the facts. In fact, it pretty much demonstrates that you're the fricking idiot here. I mean, honestly, FRED THOMPSON? You gotta be kidding.

As for what Kerry did in 1971, well, he at least tried to come clean. I knew several Vietnam vets who privately described the atrocities they and others committed over there, so it's no fantasy. Really bad shit happened. And for what? But anyone who talks about it is to blame, right. What a wierd world you live in.

As for the citizenship thing, Goldwater's case doesn't apply, because first of all it was never challenged in court. And he was born in a U.S. territory, which the canal zone never was. The applicable law at the time of McCain's birth didn't account for the canal zone, which if you read the article I linked to above was not a U.S. territory, but was under U.S. jurisdiction, making it an exception to the law of that time. This was corrected by congress a year later, which means that at the time of McCain's birth he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen". Yes, a legal technicality, but that's the law, dude. The real issue is whether anyone with "standing" to contest this will do so. I doubt Obama will. So the issue is who does have standing?

As for Obama's BC, I don't know anyone with any brains who contests its validity at this point. Where exactly would Obama have been born if not in Hawaii? And even if he had been born outside the US, what difference would it make? After 1937, all children of American citizens are considered natural born citizens. Likewise, if that in any way invalidates Obama, it also clearly invalidates McCain, so where does that leave us?

conradg, if both Obama and McCain were eliminated from the race I would be so delighted I hardly know how to describe it. Meanwhile, if you were wondering, we've already figured out that you are in the tank for the Democrats, so you can cease posturing.

And you really can't expect us to take seriously your whinging for McCain to release his records and then saying there's no point in showing BO's BC. In any case, nothing in his record could ever satisfy you, but a legit BC would have to satisfy the people asking for it.

But like I say, we all realize that you are a lefty troll, so we don't expect much from you.

anon,

I'm certainly a dem, but not a "lefty", and no troll either. I don't think I've made any attempt to hide my views. It's just not terribly relevant to the actual issues what side I'm on.

Now, the Obama people say they have released his BC. If you don't believe them, come up with some proof that the Hawaian public records are wrong. McCain can easily release his military records. Why doesn't he? You don't answer the question, you just ignore it, and make ad hominem arguments about me, which are all utterly irrelevant, and you know that.

As for eliminating both candidates from the race, we both know that isn't going to happen. I'm not the one who brought it up in any case.

Also, regarding Obama's BC, doesn't this newspaper announcement of his birth in the local Hawaian paper prove his native born story?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/23/does-this-kill-the-obama-birth-certificate-myth/

For all sane people, this pretty much destroys the issue of whether the BC is real or not. Meaning, it doesn't matter, since he was clearly born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Or are you holding onto the idea that this announcement was also a fraud, that his parents were part of a plan even then to make him President 47 years later and they knew they had to come up with a plausible story? Seems a bit unlikely, don't you think?

Then why would the BC that was offered up be a fugazi? If there's no questioning it why doesn't he cough it up? In New York a copy is $15 IIRC. What's the problem?

As for any ad hominems, your remarks about McCain are nothing but.

Oh and - as for Kerry "coming clean" I'd like to see HIS full military records including the explanation of, was it, three discharges? In any case, coming clean means you say what YOU did wrong. Ratting out others with innuendo is just that. Who'd Kerry rape or murder or mutilate?

Also, are you prepared to climb down off of "craven" yet or is your dictionary still broken?

Anon,

Dude, an ad hominem is when someone in a debate attacks the other debater's character or qualities rather than his arguments. That's what I'm getting here for the most part. When the subject of the debate is McCain's character, it isn't ad hominem to attack his character. If you want to talk about his incredibly bad policy positions and decisions, that's a different debate.

There's no proof Obama's BC is a fraud. Given the proof that he was born in the US, the only reason I could imagine for a forgery would be to hide some kind of personal info, such as perhaps his parents not being married at the time. But that's hardly relevant to his eligibilty for President, or to the election itself, so it's a private matter.

Kerry was under oath, which requires him to tell the truth, even if it's about other people's misconduct. Any fool knows all kinds of serious misconduct occurred in Vietnam. Talking about the realities of that incredibly stupid war is something Kerry should be praised for. Hiding that reality is the real crime.

As for "craven", I think it describes McCain's ambitions quite well. Look how he's acting in the campaign so far. It's just embarrassing.

First, excuse me for not signing before. The board curiously allows you to do this.

Second, dude, what have you been doing but assailing McCain's character? You are preposterous. Are you trying to tell us that his propensity to crash aircraft correlates to his propensite to cheat or divorce, or is it the other way around and his wayward wang made him a bad pilot?

In fact, basically what you're trying to tell us is, "McCain bad." You have nothing whatever to say about his positions. His character is not a position. And for me to say that this is wrong, and you are wrong for doing it, is an ad hominem? Surprised you haven't whipped out the Tu quoque yet.

There's no proof Obama's BC is Obama's BC. Please don't shine me on me about private matters. McCain's love life is a private matter - certainly was thirty years ago. Inquiring minds definitely want to know if BO was a bastard, a product of bigamy, incest or whatever.

And like Bill Clinton's case, the cover-up is worse than the crime. Forging a BC to hide bastardy is a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger deal than being a bastard. Bastardy is not a CRIME.

Kerry IMHO is a traitor who should have long ago been stood in front of a firing squad. I am not impressed that he would take an oath. I think he got a dishonorable discharge as reward for his treating with the enemy, and had it wiped out by Carter. All he has to do to prove me wrong is to release unabridged ALL of his military records.

As for "craven," you're just flailing wildly. I thought you were a troll, but I kept feeding you in case you had more to offer - some liberals and even lefties do. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

Please, the field is yours. I really can't be bothered with further discussion of the presupposed 'cravenness' or cowardice of a man who willingly refused early release from a hellish prison to support his fellow inmates and his country, with a fellow with nothing to offer but slime.

Nichevo,

This whole post and thread is about McCain's character. It's not about BO's BC, though you seem to want it to be. I wonder why that is? Could it be to distract from McCain's crappy character?

That you think dissenters like Kerry should be shot tells me all I need to know about YOUR character, but that's not the issue here. McCain's character is. You have no defense of McCain, which is basically a concession that there's not much to defend.

I guess you'll have me and other "traitors" rounded up to be shot someday too for questioning McCain's character. It's fitting that this is your final message for us. I'm glad you're so committed to "freedom".

Oh, is this thing still on? Well, conrad, apparently you can't read very well, but I'm not paid to teach you. You should move along, the Russians need you to spread lies about Georgia. TTFN.

The reason why this is a big deal is because the Republican Party has for a long time stood for the religious values i believe in...

What I'm finding out now is that The Republican party candidates aren't any different than Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy as so many other comments above have pointed out. At least they are willing to address social inequalities like Jesus did, their not saints but they don't pretend to be like I feel Republican candidates have.

Its the hypocrisy of using religion, family values, morality and such to get elected and then finding out its all a sales pitch. Its disappointing seeing the traditionally Christian party represented with such hypocritical examples. As it stands I will be voting for Obama. His house is in order.

An article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today was really informative: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/374687_Joel13.html

The reason why this is a big deal is because the Republican Party has for a long time stood for the religious values i believe in...

What I'm finding out now is that The Republican party candidates aren't any different than Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy as so many other comments above have pointed out. At least they are willing to address social inequalities like Jesus did, their not saints but they don't pretend to be like I feel Republican candidates have.

Its the hypocrisy of using religion, family values, morality and such to get elected and then finding out its all a sales pitch. Its disappointing seeing the traditionally Christian party represented with such hypocritical examples. As it stands I will be voting for Obama. His house is in order.

An article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today was really informative: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/374687_Joel13.html

A Conservative in Seattle? It is possible.

Politicians are an alpha males (mostly) why would you expect their private behavior to be any different from any other alpha?

And how about Saint Ronald? He pulled the same trick.

Obama's house is in order if you are looking for a man who sought out a Marxist mentor (Frank Marshall Davis) and Marxist professors. His own words.

So yeah if Marxist family values are your thing you are sure to love Obama. Vote for Obama? Go for it.

Bill Clinton's sex life was not the business of the public nor was John Edwards' sex life. And neither is John McCain's. These men, unlike some of the Republican Bible-thumpers, have not campaigned for "National Priest." Their sexual infidelity is no one's business but theirs and their spouses.
We are bogged down in a costly and pointless war, our finances are in a mess and our economy is teetering toward recession. Surely we have more important concerns than the sex lives of candidates, ex-presidents and/or ex-candidates.
Grow up, America. Lots of people screw around on their spouses. Your own spouse may well have done so, in fact.

Democrat,

I believe you are running on old information.

The American economy grew at a .6% rate in Q1. In Q2 it looks like near 2%. And it is picking up steam.

Yeah, Iraq is pointless unless you count extending self government to 25 million people a point.

And our finances a mess? Our deficit is running 2% of GDP about average for first wold nations. Our national debt is about 60% of GDP - at the low end for first world nations. Japan's is over 100% of their GDP. Are they falling apart?

And Johnny Boy was the Democrat's poster boy for family values. I'd say he put his sex life on the table.

Clinton? I always found him charming. Not very good at international relations though. And what about his pointless war over Kosovo? How did that work out?

I don't trust McCain one bit. Underneath his prisoner of war story is a calculating striver. His first wife suffers an accident so he just takes up with a newer, richer, prettier woman. What happened to "in sickness and in health" what about the 3 kids? How a man treats his wife and kids speaks volumes about who he is. Obama may be a communist or muslim but from all appearances he is in love with his wife and committed to his kids. All in all, I think we have 2 of the worst choices for President in my entire life!!! Man I wish Reagan could come back like Jesus.

tom,

If I was a Russian I wouldn't trust McCain either.

The 3 kids and Carol were provided for. One of the boys now works for Cindy and Carol is contributing to McCain's campaign.

I'd say it has been dealt with better than Edwards has dealt with his little problem.

M.Simon,

I don't care how many un-related subjects you want to throw in (ie Russians,Edwards, etc) it won't change the fact that McCain left his wife and 3 kids for a woman 18 years younger than himself. He didn't even have enough respect for his first wife and kids to at least get a divorce first.

If that doesn't matter to you - more power to you - by all means vote,donate money,go door-to-door for McCain.

tom,

That was 28 years ago. The folks involved seem to have mended their relations.

We have a choice between The One and a man. I'll take the guy with admitted flaws. You know. The human.

M. Simon,

Well it warms my heart to know they have patched things up.

Do you happen to know how McCain is getting on these days with his old friend Charles Keating? That was a long time ago as well and I am sure all the taxpayers who worked to bail out the S & L industry have long since moved on so I suppose letting sleeping dogs lie is the best course of action for voters.

Tom,

You seem to be an expert on so many things you haven't studied. Have you considered using Google to learn something?

And how about those four Democrats who were deep in the Keating affair? Many think McCain was added as an afterthought so that it wouldn't look like the Admin. was going only after Dems. But I haven't looked deeply into it.

I may study up and write something on it. Thanks for the idea.

M.Simon,

I don't see anything in my posts where I have claimed to be an expert. I have mentioned two things so far. First, McCain was unfaithful to his first wife and family. No studying required here - he admitted last night to Pastor Warren that this was his biggest moral failing in his life. The other was his involvement with Charles Keating. In this case I did use google. Searching for "mccain keating" will bring up a wealth of information that even non-experts can understand - Such as the fact that John,Cindy and their baby sitter took several trips at Keating's expense. I also learned that McCain wrote in 2002 that meeting with federal regulators on Keating's behalf was the "worst mistake of my life."

Fortunately for us Obama's association with Rezko and the Daley Machine have not been serious mistakes. It is not a bug, it's a feature.

I'd rather vote for a man who owns up to his errors rather than "he is not the (fill in the blank) I once knew".

You don't get to be a successful Chicago politician without owing the Machine. I lived there for 15 years. I know how it works. I can just hear it now. He is not the Daley I once knew.

If Obama gets many more bodies under his bus the wheels aren't going to get any traction.

BTW a few more appearances like the one last night where The One has to speak without a teleprompter and Adli Stevenson Obama is going to take the whole Dem ticket down with him.

See who the the first Mrs. McCain works for and who she contributes to

webofdeception.com/#carolsheppmccain