Thanks For Nothing, Bob
Former Senator Bob Kerrey has an op-ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times. For a Democrat who claims to support Barack Obama, Mr. Kerrey surely did his candidate no favors with this little essay, but then issuing advice to the opposition on how to run its campaign rarely does.
Now, his opening paragraphs seem to indicate that Sen. John McCain's military service and experience as a POW in Viet Nam don't in and of themselves make the case for a McCain presidency:
The idea the McCain campaign is pushing is that his service in the Navy and his heroic behavior as a prisoner of war especially qualify him for the Oval Office and, more narrowly, to be commander in chief. But it doesn't. I believe McCain is up to the requirements of the office, but his military service by itself no more qualifies him than John Kerry's service or mine or anyone else's. Nor is the opposite true: that Barack Obama's lack of military service makes him less worthy of being president and commander in chief.
I should make it clear that I'm supporting Obama in this election. The more McCain's supporters talk about his warrior nature, the more I worry about what he might do as president. In America, we want our warriors serving in the military, not serving as the civilian leader. [Emphasis added]
With the possible exception of the highlighted portion of this opening, I find myself pretty much agreeing with Mr. Kerrey's stance, but that highlighted section, buried in the middle of that early paragraph, also sets up the rest of the essay.
Instead of merely trumpeting McCain's service and using his former POW status as an all-purpose defense against criticism, his campaign could be telling voters what it means to bring military experience into public service. Because it's what McCain did after the Vietnam War, what he learned from those years and how he applied it, that makes him fit to be president. What would that campaign highlight? Here are some possibilities:
And then Mr. Kerrey proceeds to detail exactly how Sen. McCain should proceed to persuade the electorate to vote for him while still using the [subject] [verb] POW formula which has been the keystone of his campaign.
What is so remarkable is that Kerrey's advice completely ignores Sen. McCain's actions the last 7 years. Yes, Sen. McCain does know what it is like to be a POW under horrendous conditions, yet he still went along with the Bush administration on its insistence that waterboarding is justified in the name of national security, Geneva Conventions be damned.
And, yes, as a military man, McCain should know that diplomacy should be the first response to a world crisis, yet McCain's idea of dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations is his famous "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran."
Finally, McCain's military heritage did foster a sense of duty with respect to public service. After all, the oaths he took on entering the military and on becoming a senator both required him to defend the Constitution, yet he cheerfully signed on to all of this administration's shredding of that document when it came civil liberties which were considered "quaint" notions after 9/11.
That this shameful screed was written by a purported Democrat who claims to support the Democratic nominee and not by one the run-of-the-mill concern trolls who inhabit liberal blogs is astounding.
Heckuva job, Bobby.
Now, his opening paragraphs seem to indicate that Sen. John McCain's military service and experience as a POW in Viet Nam don't in and of themselves make the case for a McCain presidency:
The idea the McCain campaign is pushing is that his service in the Navy and his heroic behavior as a prisoner of war especially qualify him for the Oval Office and, more narrowly, to be commander in chief. But it doesn't. I believe McCain is up to the requirements of the office, but his military service by itself no more qualifies him than John Kerry's service or mine or anyone else's. Nor is the opposite true: that Barack Obama's lack of military service makes him less worthy of being president and commander in chief.
I should make it clear that I'm supporting Obama in this election. The more McCain's supporters talk about his warrior nature, the more I worry about what he might do as president. In America, we want our warriors serving in the military, not serving as the civilian leader. [Emphasis added]
With the possible exception of the highlighted portion of this opening, I find myself pretty much agreeing with Mr. Kerrey's stance, but that highlighted section, buried in the middle of that early paragraph, also sets up the rest of the essay.
Instead of merely trumpeting McCain's service and using his former POW status as an all-purpose defense against criticism, his campaign could be telling voters what it means to bring military experience into public service. Because it's what McCain did after the Vietnam War, what he learned from those years and how he applied it, that makes him fit to be president. What would that campaign highlight? Here are some possibilities:
And then Mr. Kerrey proceeds to detail exactly how Sen. McCain should proceed to persuade the electorate to vote for him while still using the [subject] [verb] POW formula which has been the keystone of his campaign.
What is so remarkable is that Kerrey's advice completely ignores Sen. McCain's actions the last 7 years. Yes, Sen. McCain does know what it is like to be a POW under horrendous conditions, yet he still went along with the Bush administration on its insistence that waterboarding is justified in the name of national security, Geneva Conventions be damned.
And, yes, as a military man, McCain should know that diplomacy should be the first response to a world crisis, yet McCain's idea of dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations is his famous "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran."
Finally, McCain's military heritage did foster a sense of duty with respect to public service. After all, the oaths he took on entering the military and on becoming a senator both required him to defend the Constitution, yet he cheerfully signed on to all of this administration's shredding of that document when it came civil liberties which were considered "quaint" notions after 9/11.
That this shameful screed was written by a purported Democrat who claims to support the Democratic nominee and not by one the run-of-the-mill concern trolls who inhabit liberal blogs is astounding.
Heckuva job, Bobby.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by Diane at 4:06 AM
2 Comments:
It may a good point to show that even among soldiers, McCain is an oddball. We know that one reason we are not fighting with the Iranian is the military that told Bush to forget it. The concept that generals want war is wrong. Wes Clark is an able diplomat and opposed Iraq. In many countries, retired generals turn out to be progressive. Of course, everyone has their hotheads such as McCain.
It may be his service as a pilot, were you don't see the horrors of war immunized him against what infantry, marines and tank crew see and abhor.
I don't think it's a qualification question. No one qualifies for the job of president. McCain's moral values are repulsive and he is a hothead. This clearly disqualifies him.
You know, this would all be fine, if we had heard about it all in 1999/2000. But it was irrelevant when taken in the context of the great bush and his birthright to lead, just as it was when kerry ran against him. So this talk of military heroism is a big smokescreen, to be used when it is allowed to be used, in the company of suckers.
Post a Comment
<< Home