If you were a democratic strategist, would you go after Mccain's war record in GE?

[galaxy21]

I'm genuinely interested in what people have to say about this.

[havocmom]

1. No. Go after his record since he entered politics

Leave military service out of it.

[patrice]

2. What about it? nt

[galaxy21]

6. basically do to him what they did to Kerry

[patrice]

29. We do not lie. nt

[krawhitham]

58. Hillary says hello

[Meeker Morgan]

3. Why isn't the Keating five business brought up more? n/t

[hedgehog]

4. I'd go after his record ON the war, not his war record! nt

[Cha]

59. Like Obama has already..and his record

on mccain's flip flops on the bushit tax cuts and with all the due respect that Obama does.

[Forkboy]

5. No. And No again for good measure.

[fadedrose]

7. No no no

[sandnsea]

8. No

I would, however, set the record straight on the millions of tons of bombs dropped and the millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians killed. McCain is still fighting Vietnam. America still hasn't turned.

[tekisui]

9. Go after his current support for torture.

And remind everyone that he denounced America after being tortured.

[sandnsea]

He does not support torture

I'm not sure why everybody is saying he supports torture, he's been one of the bigger voices against it.

[tekisui]

16. He publically stated that chimpy should veto the torture ban, and voted

against the override.

He supports, at least, legalizing the use of torture by the current war criminals in the WH.

[sandnsea]

31. I must have missed that vote

I thought he was still supporting using the Army Field Manual.

[tekisui]

37. Not any more:

The CIA has finally admitted it has used waterboarding, and though it claims it no longer does, the White House says that this "specialized interrogation" remains potentially permissible in future interrogations.

John McCain has called waterboarding an "exquisitely" painful torture, but he voted against making the Army Field Manual the standard for interrogations, thereby giving cover to some of the members of Congress who joined him to support the president. Why criticize them when the Republican presidential nominee has been the icon of those, in and out of our military, who oppose torture? This human rights status for McCain has now been tarnished badly.

In contrast to McCain's current stance, there has been continuing strong support of including the Army Field Manual in the CIA techniques by 31 retired Army, Navy and Marine Corps generals who insist -- as Human Rights First reports -- that "the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans."

link: http://dailycamera.com/news/2008/mar/25/the-torture-president-shames-this-nation/

[SoonerPride]

20. Bullcrap. He USED to be against it, but now is for waterboarding

Just like he USED to be against the crazy preacher right wing nuts, and now sucks up to them.

He's tossed his valaues under his own damned "straight talk express" bus and ran over them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. No. BAD idea. But the Keating Five thing is fair game

as is everything else he did since entering politics.

[tularetom]

11. IIRC he was less than a competent pilot

He was routinely promoted because he was the son of a big shot. I'd bet there is a lot there to be discovered. But Hillarity has already caved to him so she won't ever do it. So what does that tell ya?

[Johnny__Motown]

22. can you back that up? I have never heard anyone say he was not competent as a pilot

There is also footage of a missile malfunctioning from one plane and hitting his while it was on the deck of his aircraft carrier. You can see him jumping out of a burning plane and running for his life as his missiles and gas tanks explode. (I have not seen if for a few years so the details are blurred, maybe it was sniper fire)


If you are going to try and hit him as an incompetent pilot you better have some bullet proof evidence.

EDIT I found some of the footage,, rocket not missile sorry


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3I



and here is some info on it


http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20070122183950855

[chknltl]

24. Yep. The tragedy on the Forrestal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Fire
Many of mCcain's buddies died that day.

[Johnny__Motown]

26. I don't think going after him on his war record is smart or ethical. Just pivot from it to Iraq

[chknltl]

30. Oops...I was just posting link to the tragedy...

Not agreeing with any notions regarding his pilot skills. Senator mCcain was involved in this tragedy, he was quite lucky to have survived. He did NOTHING wrong during this tragedy, his jet was hit due to an accident he had nothing to do with.

That said, I do feel that an unrelated part of his military record does need to be brought up. I posted this very sentiment further down in this thread.

[Johnny__Motown]

33. His position on torture is fair game. You can address it without attacking his service

[chknltl]

40. I absolutely agree...I did just that.

This veers from this section of the thread regarding his pilot skills or the Forrestall tragedy though.

I find it incredible that mCcain, an ex POW who was tortured into making statements he would never have made normally, voted for torture! I would never ATTACK his record of being captured or tortured or what he was co-coerced into doing because of that torture. I instead USE his record to contrast his change of opinion...his flip-flop. If I attack ANYTHING it is his decision to support bush's torture program when he above most should and indeed does know better.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/


on edit: I went back through this bit of thread and now see where I may have given you the impression that I was agreeing that there may have been some question of mCcain's pilot record. My "Yep" in my very first response above is where the confusion origionated...my bad. Sorry

[Johnny__Motown]

45. It sounds like we agree on this.. .

[chknltl]

47. We do! Sorry for the confusion...I caused it.

I edited my last response but in case you did not see it: My "Yep" in my first post is where the confusion started I think. I was agreeing (poorly worded) that there was a tragedy, that mCcain was a part of that tragedy and posted the link because I felt it contributed to what was being said REGARDING the tragedy. Sorry.
:pals:

[tularetom]

28. Hey chill out. It was just a response.

I recalled having heard that he had wrecked a plane on a carrier deck and that it had been covered up due to his family connections. It may be the incident you refer to.

All I'm sayin is somebody should look into his record. If he's gonna use it as the centerpiece of his campaign it's fair game. If there's something there by all means use it.

It's the KKKarl rove strategery - attack them where they are strongest.

[Johnny__Motown]

35. Sorry, didn't mean to be rude.... just never heard his skills questioned.

and I don't think "swift boating" McCain is acceptable. We are not repugs and we should not act like them.

[tularetom]

39. Well surely you'd approve of plastering this on every power pole in the US

[Johnny__Motown]

44. oh hell yes

[Johnny__Motown]

12. No, he will bring it up himself, just pivot to this war not being like Viet Nam Or Korea

or any other war for that matter.


Point out that Iraq is making it harder to go after the "terrorists" and keep on repeating that until we all vote

[Guava Jelly]

13. Fuck no

I respect McCains service.
Attack his policy.

[RazBerryBeret]

14. I think I would have to

come near his war record...only because I think one of his biggest faults is his vote on torture.

After being a POW for years and admitting that he signed anti-American statement because he broke under torture (which is deserving of compassion, not ridicule) Wouldn't he have to admit that torture is not a good way to extract accurate info. If he said no, then he'd have to agree that he was Anti-American.
If he said Yes, then you'd have to ask why he voted for it.

he's in a no win situation there (IMO)

[DearAbby]

15. No.

[sampsonblk]

17. No.

The guy's a war hero. It should be left at that.

[Adelante]

18. God, no nt

[SKKY]

19. There are enough skeletons in his closet that you wouldn't need to...

...I personally think it would be tacky, considering the fact that he is pretty much the real deal in that regards- unlike our current CiC.

[chknltl]

21. Of course

How can someone who has been tortured subscribe to more torture? He KNOWS that torture produces utterly unreliable results because he produced false results himself because of torture! That is the part of his war record which I suggest needs to be gone over and over come the G.E.

:tinfoilhat: I suspect that the spinmeisters at CATO are gathering up a list of these sorts of failings in order to have mCcain's responses ready for the G.E. :tinfoilhat:

[frazzled]

23. No. But that record doesn't give him a leg up on nat'l security or foreign policy experience

That's the only thing I might say. Because honestly (and I said this about Kerry's service, too), despite the honor and service and all that, and I do respect it ... what does it have to do with making decisions about national security today?

[spindrifter]

25. No. I don't think

it is appropriate for someone who did not serve in the military to attack McCain's record. He has plenty of vulnerabilities that are relevant to his current fitness to be President.

[cornermouse]

27. Carefully and delictely, his age

and all the attendant conditions and potential problems associated with it. His Senate record. His recent anyway, close relationship with Bush.

[IsItJustMe]

32. Several people have already. The facts are out there. It's risky.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. Absolutely

Swift boat him like they did Kerry. Talk about how he sold out his fellow soldiers. Dems need to get nasty.

[stillcool]

36. His record for war, and torture?

yeah. Vietnam? No.

[tekisui]

38. Is someone stable and mentally fit to be CiC after being subjected

to a POW camp for 5+ years, with torture?

I think not.

[Arkansas Granny]

41. No. I don't agree with McCain's politics and don't want him as President, but I do respect

him for his service to his country.

[goletian]

42. that shits only important to idiots who think being tortured qualifies you for the presidency nt

[Tribetime]

43. That's about the only thing I wouldn't go after him on

Most people are very respecting of his service, That would backfire bigtime. I respect his service.

[blogslut]

46. No

He's got plenty of problems we can hit him on. Primarily, the fact that he's a Republican who supported this crappy war. Of course, it helps to have a Democratic candidate who was against the war from the beginning ;)

[boppers]

48. It's his whole freaking family.

His grandfather was a WWII admiral. His father was an admiral while he was being tortured in vietnam, and one of his sons is in Iraq right *now* (it's politely not discussed, simply because of the propaganda risk).... If you want to go after McCain on his military backgroun, be prepared. Very prepared.

When he was accused of being a carpetbagger in AZ, this was his response:
"Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the first district of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi."

Going after him on military issues will be hard, but there is a solution: Go after *bush's* failed positions, and ask McCain about why he supported so many of them. Make the conversation all about bush's military history, not McCain's.

[shadowknows69]

49. No reason to

It isn't relevant and you can't touch it so why bother.

[spag68]

50. Just to wrap up

The book that most resembles what you want, is Sailors to the End.The book doe's not provide much info about his flying, There are others that do,so find them, I've heard them quoted.Thee are hints that he was at the bottom of his class. Problem is, some of their best pilots come from there. Any way none of this has anything to do with the Keating 5,plenty of stuff there. So he wasn't an Audy Murfee hero, he was a hero in his own way, get over it!This time,of all times the dems must employ an aggressive ground up get em registered for a fight.show that thert sure what.e is a new voting block in town and you can deliever something,as youre not sure what.There are so many ways to go after McCain has a pretty good rap, but has been known to blow up in a rage. He does appear to be lucid most of the time. thats good. the answer is yes you can go after his war record. but in such a way as to almost rxhonoriate it. Every article, every commercial shoult have Keating 5 in it.

[TLM]

51. No... exactly the opposite....

make him the war candidate... hang ever war related issue around his neck, pin every medal on his chest, and make him the pro-war candidate.

Then run against the war.

[titopuenteooo]

52. Of course

McCain has made mistakes recently, such as the famous sunny-shia "gaffe".

[better tomorrow]

53. it all depends upon what his war record REALLY is...remember, Dubya said

that he was a military guy but he was actually AWOL. And, no one stopped spitting at the Veterans when they returned. It was an unpopular war, remember? But, it would be a tough call. All depends on if they could find a discrepancy or lie in it.

[yewberry]

54. Hell no.

That shit is for republicans.

I'd go after him for supporting torture (oh, the irony), supporting the Iraq war, his failure to adequately address the loss of civil liberties and the dismantling of the Constitutional protections in the name of 'security,' and for his support of an obviously disastrous economic policy.

Plus, he's kind of an unstable guy.

[Capn Sunshine]

55. Why not? He admits he cracked

It's astounding that this man who was tortured into confessing war crimes against the Vietnamese thinks torture is OK.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. If I thought it would do any good, absolutely

But I doubt it would. Republicans get a free pass on almost all of this shit.

I do think we need to question whether he is too senile to be President, especially after his Al Qaeda in Iran comment.

[davidinalameda]

57. no

[donheld]

60. Is that part of the Audacity of Hope?

I think not.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. If it's the Iraq war, yes. Vietnam war, no. nt

[AllentownJake]

62. No

My father was a Vet and I have a moral compass. Plus when democrats beat up a GOP vet it reminds those people of the protesters beating up on them during the Vietnam war. We can't get away with it even if we were sick enough to want to.

[NJSecularist]

63. Do whatever it takes to win the election.

If it means smearing his war record, so be it. After what the Rethugs pulled in 2004, nothing is off limits. The stakes are too high to just play Mr. Nice Guy.

[crankychatter]

64. being a veteran doesn't make you a geopolical genius

this is a silly question, nothin' personal

OF COURSE, his Military Service is off limits...

geesh

[bridgit]

65. More like McCain's war *mongering*, military industrial complex lobbyist record...

and his fiddling with financial systems he knows nothing about; plus other stuff too

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. No...

even if he was a reverse ace...

he also faced torture and actually served.

Now his record after he entered politics is more than just fair game

[krawhitham]

67. Question about being a hero

How does failing to do ones job correctly which results in getting caught, held as a POW, being tortured and making an anti-American propaganda "confession" where he claimed he was a "black criminal" and an "air pirate" make one a hero?

[Recursion]

68. Only if I were an evil scum-sucking piece of **** and wanted to lose

Don't. Go. There.

[Tresalisa]

69. Put me in the column of not going after his war record,

but attacking what he has done while a senator, and why that is not the direction we want for our country.

It wasn't right for Kerry to get swiftboated, and it's not right for McCain.

[David__77]

70. Not directly, but yes, absolutely.

I would try to make the attack appear like it's from the right. I would infer that he collaborated with the North Vietnamese. Further, that he is clinically insane from his war experience, and perhaps brainwashed.

[Drachasor]

71. That's spewing dirty trash, imho

The Democrats can and will win, and we can do it by behaving a heck of a lot better than the Republicans. Demeaning victims of torture is not acceptable.

[David__77]

74. What it takes to achieve victory.

Is what I'm willing to do. Luckily, the nominee doesn't have to have anything to do with it. Certainly such a strategy would have to be vetted beforehand with focus groups etc. and dissociated from the nominee.

[damndude]

72. iraq and the economy should be enough but.........

knowing the republicans, i wouldn't say that i wouldn't be prepared with a back-up plan. would hope it wouldn't come that. but it assumes that you could actually touch his war record and by all accounts i don't think there is much that can be touched.

[davidpdx]

73. As everyone else has said, no

But his stance on torture, his stance on the war, his support and love of Bush and his policies are fair game. There is plenty to go after him on. Going after his service to our country is a bad idea.

[LaPera]

75. Absolutely; you've already forgotten Kerry?

No one gets "turned-off" by character assassination but the Dems, never the republicans, they'll vote.

It's politics, but the Dems say let's play fair as the world crumbles, stupid Dems and how did we lose?

We had truth on our side????

As the republicans stay in power and laugh!

[Drachasor]

76. Kerry didn't actively fight for the truth, that was one of his big problems

A truth can prevail, but, especially with our crappy media, you can't assume it will come out on top without a fight.

We can win and we can do it without becoming scum.

[ShortnFiery]

77. No, IMO attacking a former POW's war record is like attacking a girl's sexual history after a rape.

It's definitely a "no go."