quote:Republican John McCain quickly denounced the comments of a radio talk show host who while warming up a campaign crowd referred repeatedly to Barack Hussein Obama and called the Democrat a "hack, Chicago-style" politician.
[...]
"I apologize for it," McCain told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask the Arizona senator about Cunningham's comments.
"I did not know about these remarks but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign.
McCain called both Democrats "honorable Americans" and said "I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."
posted
I thought it'd be a sarcastic thread, but I'm definitely wrong. Perhaps the information age has finally put a stop to stupid, negative politics?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming he really didn't know what the guy was going to say, and it appears he really didn't, I agree, it was quite classy. I wouldn't say that he has respected Obama his entire campaign. I've felt a few of his and his wife's remarks were off base, but this particular move is honorable, yes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way the media is covering it, and the way news spreads now, it's a scandal if a candidate drools too much in their sleep. I'm frankly getting tired of sensation after trumped-up sensation. We're starting to judge the candidates entirely by how they handle the latest molehill the media is piling on them.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, good on McCain for that. I suppose in the era of non-candidate-associated advocacy groups and staunchy partisan talking heads, there's little hope for a completely mud-free campaign, but I'm beginning to hope for a McCain/Obama race that might be at least cleaner than any of the recent ones.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: If so, Clinton hasn't caught up to the age. :/
I just want to take this opportunity to disassociate myself from that statement. I was not aware of the remarks made by Ketchupqueen before I entered this thread, but I take responsibility for them and repudiate them. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:During the second hour of his show, "Willie" became Wild Bill when he attacked McCain for apologizing.
"He just threw me under the bus for the national media. I have had it," Cunningham blasted. "With McCain and -- I'm going to endorse Hillary Clinton. I want Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States. I am going to throw my support behind Hillary Clinton."
quote:During the second hour of his show, "Willie" became Wild Bill when he attacked McCain for apologizing.
"He just threw me under the bus for the national media. I have had it," Cunningham blasted. "With McCain and -- I'm going to endorse Hillary Clinton. I want Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States. I am going to throw my support behind Hillary Clinton."
If "Barack Hussein Obama" is the height of the wit this moron brings to bear for his supported cause, I'm sure the loss of support will be devastating for the McCain camp. Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:During the second hour of his show, "Willie" became Wild Bill when he attacked McCain for apologizing.
"He just threw me under the bus for the national media. I have had it," Cunningham blasted. "With McCain and -- I'm going to endorse Hillary Clinton. I want Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States. I am going to throw my support behind Hillary Clinton."
If "Barack Hussein Obama" is the height of the wit this moron brings to bear for his supported cause, I'm sure the loss of support will be devastating for the McCain camp.
... You do realize that really is his middle name, right?
I believe the wit that the moron brought to his supported cause was referring to Obama as a "hack, Chicago-style" politician.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is his middle name and one he doesn't deny. But the constant stress on it is a fairly obvious way of painting Obama as a Muslim and associating him with Saddam in the minds of the voters.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depending on who's doing the talking, it's very obvious why the middle name is being included. How often do you hear Senator Clinton referred to as, "Hillary Rodham Clinton"?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor McCain. Over and over again, to be in the position of having to apologize for the negative comments and mud-slinging done -- not by him -- but by friends, campaign staff, relatives, people purported to be speaking on his behalf.
How unforunate to be surrounded by these people. It's a good thing he's there them straight ...over and over again.
In the meantime, those negative messages that he would never personally condone keep getting out there, don't they just?
What a strange world.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the meantime, those negative messages that he would never personally condone keep getting out there, don't they just?
Truly it is a nefarious scheme of his, to exert such clever power over his far-flung minions.
quote:Poor McCain. Over and over again, to be in the position of having to apologize for the negative comments and mud-slinging done -- not by him -- but by friends, campaign staff, relatives, people purported to be speaking on his behalf.
Incidentally, which was this talk radio host? Friend, campaign staff, relative, or person speaking for McCain?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beats me. I have limited information available.
I'm floating a possibility, not taking a position. To be fair, it's likely that McCain really has nothing to do with these things happening.
But hypothetically, if I were a politician who wanted to smear my opponents whilst seeming to remain respectful and clean-handed, I'd arrange for the very circumstances in which McCain seems to repeatedly find himself.
If my biggest rival were Mitt Romney, I'd call for an investigation into anti-Mormon push-polls conducted in New Hampshire primaries; clarify, when my mother blamed the Olympics scandal on "the Mormons of Salt Lake City", that I don't necessarily share her views; express disappointment when one of my campaign chairmen tried to link the LDS Church to Hamas...
And when my biggest challenger became Obama, I'd get my apology shoes on for when the people around me started going after him...
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Depending on who's doing the talking, it's very obvious why the middle name is being included. How often do you hear Senator Clinton referred to as, "Hillary Rodham Clinton"?
Rodham isn't her middle name, it's her maiden name. "Diane" is her middle name.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't aware Senator Palpatine was the Republican front runner
Yeah, laugh it off. That's how he got the Galactic Republic. Everybody all: Palpatine? Scheming? What! Hilarious. Meanwhile he's in a dark room somewhere force-choking puppies.
And I bet someone somewhere was saying "Palpatine stays classy."
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And she did not take Clinton as her married name initially; she only began using it when her husband ran for governor. There's nothing negative in anyone's use of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but since Obama does not make a point of using his middle name and his detractors do, it's definitely, as Chris said, to try and smear him since the American people associate the name with Saddam.
Although I wish Obama (or his staff, or whoever it was) had never said anything about that photograph of him in Somali dress; if it was being circulated for underhanded purposes, then the only way to respond was to say that there was nothing wrong with showing respect for the customs of a country he was visiting. Oh well.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Incidentally, which was this talk radio host? Friend, campaign staff, relative, or person speaking for McCain?
He was speaking on stage at a McCain rally before McCain spoke. Someone arranged for him to be there, and that someone probably knew his views from his radio show. If they didn't, they were absolutely idiotic to put him on a stage before MCain.
I seriously doubt that someone was McCain. But it was someone in his campaign staff who maybe just picked a popular local conservative figure, or maybe decided what tone they wanted to set. I have little sympathy for the disavowal unless it comes with firing whoever arranged for the guy to talk. . . there is little to no excuse for not knowing what kind of tone a radio show host takes when all you have to do is listen to his show.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sen. McCain is being noble in purposing to speak respectfully of his opponents. All presidential candidates remember the example of James G. Blaine, "the Plumed Knight from Maine," the Republican candidate for president in 1884, who lost a close election because of the adverse reaction among Catholics in New York to the pronouncements others in his party put forth which he did not disavow, which denounced Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." The Rum and Rebellion comments alluded to Democrats being against the Temperance Movement, which Republicans and Christians favored, and of having lingering sympathies with the recently defeated Confederacy. Blaine could have skated by with those references, but by using the term "Romanism," which is a pejorative term for Roman Catholicism, he offended Catholics. The Democrat, Grover Cleveland, won election by a few thousand votes, even though he had campaigned as "a straight arrow," then was revealed to have fathered an illegitimate child.
I think at times McCain is overly respectful. I think he was wrong to disavow the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who I believe are the ones who told the truth about John Kerry in Vietnam. But I can appreciate his wish not to get involved in questioning the patriotism of his opponents, even if it is very questionable.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think he was wrong to disavow the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who I believe are the ones who told the truth about John Kerry in Vietnam.
Several of the people involved in the Swift Boat for Truth campaign were also behind a nascent effort during the 2000 Republican primaries to label John McCain as a collaborating traitor during his time as a POW. He knew they were lying then and he had very good reason to believe that they were lying in 2004.
---
edit: I'm personally disgusted by people who abruptly cease supporting our troops when those troops (or bonified war heroes) are saying things that they don't agree with.
posted
In what way was John Kerry ever a war hero? He never did anything heroic, outside of fragging himself in the butt. Whatever anyone imagines Kerry may have done when a crewman was in the water, he does not hold a candle to McCain, who was in a POW camp for five years, tortured to the point where his captors gave him up for dead (and was nursed by to health by fellow prisoners), and then when his father was promoted to Admiral-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and his captors offered to show political "good will" by giving McCain early release, McCain refused to be released ahead of other prisoners who had been held captive longer. That is a war hero.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, John Kerry is a decorated war hero. He certainly didn't go through what John McCain went through, but that hardly diminishes what John Kerry did to earn his Silver and Bronze Stars.
quote:Silver Star: The Silver Star citation makes clear that Kerry's wartime service was both extraordinary and risky. "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets," the Kerry's silver star citation says, Kerry "again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. ... The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."
Bronze Star V: "The man was receiving sniper fire from both banks," according to Kerry's Bronze Star citation. "Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain (purple heart #3), with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard [a Green Beret who is identified only as "Rassman."]. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged craft and towed the boat to safety. Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service," Zumwalt's citation said.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In what way was John Kerry ever a war hero? He never did anything heroic, outside of fragging himself in the butt. Whatever anyone imagines Kerry may have done when a crewman was in the water, he does not hold a candle to McCain, who was in a POW camp for five years, tortured to the point where his captors gave him up for dead (and was nursed by to health by fellow prisoners), and then when his father was promoted to Admiral-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and his captors offered to show political "good will" by giving McCain early release, McCain refused to be released ahead of other prisoners who had been held captive longer. That is a war hero.
No offense to McCain, but, as a purely academic question, I wonder what the value of being a hero even is anymore. I've heard the word hero used more since 9/11 than I have combined in all the years before it. Everyone is a hero. Every single soldier is a hero, the POWs are heroes, the police are heroes, the firefighters are heroes. If everyone is a hero, does it have any value anymore? Everyone called Jessica Lynch a hero when she was captured without firing a shot from her gun, and then endured I think a few days in a hospital before being rescued. If you ask me, she panicked, got captured, and then lucked out. I don't know every single detail, but what I do know doesn't lead me to believe she's a hero.
Other than endurance, what'd McCain do? Is being a hero just being a hero, or are there degrees of being a hero? Can someone be a bigger hero? What does it take? The whole "American Hero" thing just wears thin with me. I know no one can publicly question McCain's heroism without being branded with the Scarlet Letter, and I'm not even doing that here, but I am curious as to the value of what constitutes being a hero anymore.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the Japanese McCain is a coward, and a shame to his family, his nation, to the president, and to his honour. There is no higher dishonour then to surrender.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To the Japanese McCain is a coward, and a shame to his family, his nation, to the president, and to his honour. There is no higher dishonour then to surrender.
Whoa. That's...umm, an interesting interpretation, Sid Meier.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think McCain gets to be a hero not because he was tortured, but because he did not take the easy out. If he had gone home when offered, other soldiers would have stayed longer. He picked easing their suffering over his. I do think you need to do more then survive in order to be a hero. You have to make a choice to do what is right.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been serious questions, discrepancies, denials, and disavowels about all those citations and medals given to John Kerry. The citations were not written by eye-witnesses, and were actually contradicted by eye-witnesses. And Kerry put himself up for at least one of those purple hearts, after his commanding officer refused to, because it was only a scratch and not even caused by enemy fire. Kerry is a guy who was just "gaming the system." He certainly did not believe in what he was doing.
Kerry did not have his moral fibre tested, like McCain did.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give up, Samprimary. How are you defining "war hero"? I am not convinced John Kerry ever did anything heroic. Like I said, he just gamed the system, putting himself in for an undeserved purple heart, possibly even writing his own silver star citation.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Like I said, he just gamed the system, putting himself in for an undeserved purple heart, possibly even writing his own silver star citation.
Ahhh...lies. Ron, at some point you may want to think about why you constantly need to rely on lies to support your positions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I give up, Samprimary. How are you defining "war hero"? I am not convinced John Kerry ever did anything heroic. Like I said, he just gamed the system, putting himself in for an undeserved purple heart, possibly even writing his own silver star citation.
How are we to ever believe anything that anyone ever says then? There's conflicting testimony, there's conflicting reports on McCain, there's the controversy about Bush's alleged service, or lack thereof. Is it all a lie? Or is it just a lie if it reinforces something you already want to believe? How are we to believe that McCain's judgement hasn't been totally affected by what happened to him over there? Like when he calls Vietnamese people gooks? How can we trust that he's rational? I guess it all comes down to what you already believed doesn't it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit it would be fun if I thought Ron were capable of anything approaching an honest conversation (remember, liberals are crazy due to the constant lying) to quote his statements about Kerry's service record, and then ask him questions about Bush's service record.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Like when he calls Vietnamese people gooks?
He doesn't actually call all Vietnamese gooks, you know. He's been clear that this is only meant for the people who captured and tortured him.
---
edit: And can I say, I feel strange being one of the most vocal McCain defenders on Hatrack. I'm emphatically not voting for him and I've actively tried to convince other people not to as well. I just don't like the incorrect information.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm sure the Vietnamese feel awesome about that distinction. I know the reference, and I've even defended him, albeit lightly, on the same subject, because I personally find it to be a substantive difference. But will others outside the US? The question is his judgement in using a word that he knows to be offensive to the Vietnamese. It's the same guy that laid into Mrs. Obama, or let his wife do it by proxy, for misspeaking. How many more gaffes would angry old man McCain make when he's president? It's no secret he has a temper, it's no secret that he's old, and it's no secret that the things that he says when he's angry have gotten him into trouble in the past. He might even be worse than Bush for all we know.
To be fair though, while I DO think that everything I just said is a big valid question, mostly I'm just baiting Ron. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling his captors gooks is similar to Reagon calling the Soviet Union the evil empire, there are some things you just don't say, especially considering that those "gooks" are currently the recognized government of Vietnam.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that McCain was instrumental in prodding the US into renormalizing its relationship with Vietnam and recognizing its government, I very much doubt that the Vietnamese leadership cares what he called them during the war, or that he occasionally slipped on an epithet after the war. Especially since they probably used worse to describe Americans during that far-gone era, and made similar slips afterwards.
Since renormalization, McCain has been a far better advocate for the interests of Vietnam than any of its government's longtime allies. That being so, trying to score political points on this matter is just a "Silly Season" distraction (as Obama put it) from the real issues that need to be addressed in the here&now.
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: To the Japanese McCain is a coward, and a shame to his family, his nation, to the president, and to his honour. There is no higher dishonour then to surrender.
So, Blayne, you think he ought to have done hari-kiri?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term is seppuku. The use of 'hari-kari' or 'hara-kiri' is about like calling creamed chipped beef over toast 'SOS' using the words rather than the initials.
And that "death before surrender" is pure fantasy. Japan had so many wars during the feudal period that if it were true, there wouldn't have been enough Japanese left to repopulate the country.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, I'm not sure I agree with you on the international level. I'd expect the leaders of Vietnam to be more saavy than that, but I really know nothing about them.
On the domestic level, I think there is an obvious enormous difference between using a derogatory term to refer to an entire race of people and using it to denote an extreme hatred for the people who tortured you for years.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Gyokusai (玉砕, Gyokusai?), literally "shattered jewel" is a Japanese euphemism for suicide attack, or suicide (seppuku) in the face of defeat. It is based on a quote of the 7th century Classical Chinese text Book of Northern Qi, 大丈夫寧可玉砕何能瓦全 "a great man should die as a shattered jewel rather than live as an intact tile". It was applied to a conception of honourable death in defeat by Saigō Takamori (1827–1877), and employed as a slogan ichioku gyokusai (一億玉砕, ichioku gyokusai?) "one hundred million broken jewels" by the Japanese government during the last months of the Pacific War, when Japan faced invasion by the Allies. ... Colonel Yasugo Yamazaki of the Special Naval Landing Force (Marines), who led troops occupying Attu island, Alaska, in 1943, was determined to die rather than surrender to US forces attempting to recapture Attu. A medical officer subordinated to him wrote the last entry to his diary shortly before the attack: "only 33 years of living and I am to die here... I have no regrets. Banzai to the Emperor... Goodbye my beloved wife."[3] On May 29, 1943, Yamazaki gathered the remaining 1,000 Japanese troops and personally led a Banzai charge, ceremonial katana (Japanese long sword) in hand. He and almost all involved in the charge died. Only 28 Japanese marines survived to be taken prisoner by Allied forces.
The "death before surrender" thing may be exaggerated. But it is far from "pure fantasy."
MrSquicky: Only on the international front, I agree its possible the people in Vietnam may be ok with it. The thing is, the President of the United States when speaking in an international arena is not just representing himself but the US as a whole. He's going to have to put his personal feelings behind him. (...and why are we going over this again anyways, I thought he said he would stop anyways, period)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, right — no you don't. You never would, not that I can see. I could load you up on all the ambiguities of the Swift Boat campaign and you would still believe even the open falsehoods about Kerry. Since he was the liberal candidate in 2004, your judgment was pre-rendered.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
