« War for War's Sake | Main | The Necessity of Contingency »

The Old People Strategy

01 Apr 2008 11:34 am

Ed Kilgore has an excellent post on the oddly backward nature of John McCain's current "biography tour" and the general weirdness of the campaign emphasizing the idea that their candidate is genetically programmed to monger war through his jingoistic heritage (or something). Ed notes the analogy to Bob Dole's 1996 campaign, the last time the GOP thought having an old man talk fondly about long-past suffering was a good way to win elections. Relatedly, I think it was Matt Stoller who pointed out recently that the candidate with the more impressive military record lost in 1992 and 1996 and 2000 and 2004 so there's reason to doubt that McCain's genuinely impressive military record will serve as an ace in the hole for his campaign.

What I'll say on behalf of this strategy is that it's the best way I can think of to try to take advantage of older people's potential discomfort with the idea of a woman or a black man in the White House that doesn't involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way. McCain's putting together an identity politics counter-narrative steeped in nostalgia; it didn't work against a white southerner running on a very cautious agenda, but 2008 is going to see the Democrats nominating an unorthodox candidate running on a more liberal agenda.

To me, though, one primary issue in a McCain-Obama race is going to be how successful McCain can be at obscuring his enormous hostility to America's public sector retirement infrastructure. McCain's record, and that of his key economic advisors, is pretty clear -- these are people who want to gut Social Security and Medicare in order to clear budgetary space for an agenda of low taxes and many wars. The resulting situation will be fine for those senior citizens who, like McCain, had the foresight to divorce their first wife in order to marry an heiress and then secure a congressional pension, but others may not achieve such happy results. That could all be very damaging to McCain's old people strategy, but to be damaging Democrats will need to move on to the general election first.

Share This

Comments (60)

This is going to be an interesting election cycle. I'm trying to figure out how McCain doesn't get destroyed. Not only is he a terrible candidate, but he's pretty obviously a terrible candidate. But the media is so in the bag for him, it could make things interesting. But short of goring Obama, I'm not sure what they could do.

"Relatedly, I think it was Matt Stoller who pointed out recently that the candidate with the more impressive military record lost in 1992 and 1996 and 2000 and 2004 so there's reason to doubt that McCain's genuinely impressive military record will serve as an ace in the hole for his campaign."

Okay, but I'll bet if Air Force One was hijacked by Cossacks or something he'd like totally kick their ass.

Matt, do you think that (for example) raising the Social Security retirement age by one year would constitute "gutting" the system?

Your snark is killing me Matt.

McCain's genuinely impressive military record

Indeed -- he's crashed more planes than most of us have ever flown!

Okay, but I'll bet if Air Force One was hijacked by Cossacks or something he'd like totally kick their ass.

Are you kidding? The old dufus can't even comb his own hair.

"who pointed out recently that the candidate with the more impressive military record lost in 1992 and 1996 and 2000 and 2004"

Also true for 1972 and 1980, arguably 1984. Other than maybe 1988, Last time a war hero won was in 1960.

The resulting situation will be fine for those senior citizens who, like McCain, had the foresight to divorce their first wife in order to marry an heiress...

Priceless, MY.

As to the Stoller point, not just that the less-impressive military record won 4 times in a row. The two winners were quite conspicuously "draft dodgers" (one out of genuine conscience, the other guided by rich-boy goof-offery but it hardly matters). While 3 of the 4 losers were not just veterans but genuine war heroes -- one shot out of a plane, another permanently maimed by war injuries, another a multiple Purple Heart winner.

The last paragraph of your post is a true classic. Says all you need to know about the Republican mindset.

So, here's the biggest problem Democrats have, I think.
I like Obama a lot. I generally figure I'm voting for him for President this year. And I like Yglesias' blog a lot, too.
But then I read Matt telling me about how McCain's sorta odd tour of his childhood/family hangouts, stressing his family's service, shows he is "genetically programmed to monger war through his jingoistic heritage" -- and let's be clear, I know there's some snark there, but it's of a tune with Matt's weird way of writing about McCain and I suspect, let's say, that the phrase dripped rather easily from Matt's pen -- and I genuinely think, fuck it, I'm voting McCain. And then I go down to see neil's dumb-ass Swift-boating and I am pretty sure I'm voting McCain -- and probably in a couple days I'll cool off and be all, "Obama 2008!" again, but right now I'm not.
There's a lot to criticize in McCain. But in general i find that most of the people who want to do it, can't do it without being uber-dicks. And, yeah, pore dumb me, that might move my vote -- and lots of other people's.

Sanjay, you let crappy snark sway your presidential preferences like that? Seriously? Do you also put toothpaste on your hair in the morning?

Matt: please learn the definition of "narrative" and stop ,isuing it in the current trenady fashion.

Jim W, that is profoundly not funny.

The resulting situation will be fine for those senior citizens who, like McCain, had the foresight to divorce their first wife in order to marry an heiress and then secure a congressional pension, but others may not achieve such happy results.

If the GOP is going to base its campaign on the fact that Obama's minister said something they can spin as being scary and black, then where the heck is the counter-campaign about McCain's peccadilloes.

Maybe Ross Perot could fund it.

Yeah, I'll vote for more wars, which will only hurt our dollar and my wallet and prevent us from helping out schools or discovering alternative energy, more tax cuts for the brackets above me, no cheaper health care, and more messes on Wall Street, because a blogger used a tone I didn't appreciate. I'll vote to give the kids I someday hope to have even more debt to inherit, because McCain vows to stay in Iraq while cutting taxes, because random commenter on said blogger's site kind of made fun of someone. The blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on my hands because I just couldn't help getting worked up over the internet.

PEOPLE: if you are a Democrat, you cannot be so easily swayed. There is too much at stake. Even if it means voting for Hillary- the consequences, for a Democrat, are too great.

Sanjay, you are an ass if you would change your vote b/c you don't like the tone of MY's criticism.

WTF is up with this kind of stuff? Writing sarcastic but true statements about Republicans goes too far and people are threatening to revolt over that? Writing dirty, malicious smears against Democrats is just politics as usual and demonstrates that the Republicans are the ones with the real backbone? Why are there so many assclowns running around out there?

The public twice elected a crooked warmonger hellbent on bankrupting the nation. The fact Bush wasn't going to serve well each of their individual (or collective) needs mattered not. So, a bunch of dead people and trillions$$ down the hole was the result of the electorate's collective decision. Why exactly will this same group of people forego electing someone bent on bankrupting/gutting/eliminating Social Security and other safety net programs? I mean, aren't there trillions more yet to set fire to, lose, steal or spend on fighter bombers? McCain is PRECISELY the President the people want.

It's swift-boating to point out that he's crashed a lot of planes? I didn't say he did it on purpose or because he was drunk or anything. He's crashed a lot more planes than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have. If you think that would make him a better president than them, you're entitled to that view, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Ah, and there are the anticipated insults. And the insulters are wrong.
I'm not an expert in everything. My votes, what I read, what I believe, those are based in trust. I got lots o' reasons not to trust the administration.
And -- and I think Matt will agree with this -- the Republican line is, the anti-McCain dialogue comes from a bunch of people who have no clue whatever what McCain's family's service record is worth: a bunch of snot-nosed academic twits motivated by hyperpartisan bitterness.
And all I'm sayin' is, Matt's writing generally vindicates that view -- which is a shame, because it's hardly the only negative take you can have on McCain. Think I'm stupid to be given pause by that? Keep pilin' on, dumbasses, and weep in 2009.

Matt, do you think that (for example) raising the Social Security retirement age by one year would constitute "gutting" the system?

calling for diverting social security inflow into private accounts is a far cry from raising the retirement age by one year as far as talking about "gutting" the Social Security system. Did you intentionally intend to be misleading about McCain's stance?

"Think I'm stupid to be given pause by that?"

Why should anyone think any different? Your worries are the same we've seen that last few election cycles -- those democrats are so nasty, and they can't take a punch, and they're just snot-nosed wind-surfing elitists... The only appropriate reaction to this kind of crap is scorn -- if Kerry had adopted the snark, he'd have won.

The resulting situation will be fine for those senior citizens who, like McCain, had the foresight to divorce their first wife in order to marry an heiress and then secure a congressional pension, but others may not achieve such happy results.
*************************************************

Oh, you mean the John Kerry retirement plan! He got his money the old-fashioned way - he married it

"Think I'm stupid to be given pause by that?"

No, a lot of intelligent people believe stupid things like that. Nobody, including you, is changing their vote because of snarky bloggers. People might rationalize their votes that way, but no one is genuinely changing their vote.

I suppose it could motivate some fundraisers, but it is more likely to do the opposite. If we keep it up, someday people will realize that the Republican party's "support" for the fighting man is a big sham.

Sanjay,

In fairness to Matt when America first began to confront the legacy of Vietnam in the early 80s he was but a toddler, busy mastering toilet training and worrying about getting into The Dalton School.

Li'l Matt's days must've been busier than we can imagine, filled with interviews and references and diapers and yet more interviews for the Upper East Side's most elite prepschool. Harvard, this blog and whites-only indie rock listening parties with his beloved Spencer lay in the future and he could no more be expected to come to grips with that war than he can now be expected to truly acknowledge why the memory of Cambodia, the Vietnamese boat people and our frantic withdrawal should haunt even those of us who hate Bush and this current bloody fiasco.

McCain believed in the Vietnam War and, to his credit, made sure he actually risked his life.

Matt initially supported this current war, yes? Did Matt volunteer? No? Well, McCain did go over. He actually put himself on line for a war he supported, dude. Go figure.

McCain then spent years being tortured rather than go home before his peers. He didn't take advantage of being an admiral's son. Something to perhaps contemplate when a past President's wife is trying to succeed a past President's son for the office.

I'll be blunt, Matt's family probably pulled more strings getting him into the schools he attended than McCain used to get out of a Vietnamese POW camp.

Take a second to think about that one, kiddies.

I'll wait.

No wonder this whole "honor" thing can only provoke rote jeers and claims of confusion from the kid.

Look, I'm an Obama supporter and I'd vote for Hilary before McCain, but Yglesias' attitude towards the man's past (not his political opinions, his past) is a constant embarrassment.

Matt's smarter than his little buddies Ezra and Spencer combined, but his utter inability to understand why people - on both the left and right - respect how McCain handled himself is pathetic and, I suspect, all too telling.

a bunch of snot-nosed academic twits motivated by hyperpartisan bitterness

Yeah, it's true.. everybody but the snot-nosed academic twits and the bitter partisans had a deep and emotional reaction to John Kerry's heroic war service, after all, and that's why the less educated demographics swept him to the Presidency.

McCain's name is the giveaway that he is "genetically programmed to monger war through his jingoistic heritage." The contraction "Mc" is from the gaelic for "son of."

McCain means son of Cain.

ATMYDLT, MattY's point is not that McCain's past is poor, but rather that is political strategy is a poor one and particularly out of touch with the needs of the time, and I think that's a fair assessment. In fact, I would go so far as to say that McCain's campaign is mock-worthy.

McCain can't choose his past. He can, however, choose whether or not to make the campaign about the past at the precise moment when such a strategy is not a good idea.

Actually, Campesino, John Kerry's retirement plan was to shore up social security. Bush and McCain advocated dismantling it.

I suspect there's always been a lot of resentment for Kerry for becoming successful and marrying well, while not trying to pretend to be a cowboy who hates the poor. It's not that Republicans merely disagree with rich Democrats, it's that they take it so personally, as though they've committed some offense by being rich and remaining a Democrat, rather than internalizing the resentments and hostility towards the poor that republicans consider it their birthright to engage in.


No, a lot of intelligent people believe stupid things like that. Nobody, including you, is changing their vote because of snarky bloggers. People might rationalize their votes that way, but no one is genuinely changing their vote.

This is right on the money.


a bunch of people who have no clue whatever what McCain's family's service record is worth

It's not worth much in considering whether he should be the next president.


Yeah, it's true.. everybody but the snot-nosed academic twits and the bitter partisans had a deep and emotional reaction to John Kerry's heroic war service, after all, and that's why the less educated demographics swept him to the Presidency.

It's pretty clear at this point that war mongers get really defensive about their politicians' war records but have no respect for peace-loving candidates records. It's pretty clear that it's the warmongering that they value, not the service record.

the candidate with the more impressive military record lost in 1992 and 1996 and 2000 and 2004

I'm not sure 2000 really counts here as neither Bush nor Gore had a particularly distinguished military record.

No wonder this whole "honor" thing can only provoke rote jeers and claims of confusion from the kid.

I agree that McCain's behavior as a POW was honorable. But, does that mean the whole napalming of Vietnamese peasants part was honorable too?

"Actually, Campesino, John Kerry's retirement plan was to shore up social security."

How, by raising the retirement age again? Raising the payroll taxes? Reducing the rate of growth of benefit spending? I don't remember the fixes John Kerry proposed -- perhaps you can refresh my memory.

"But, does that mean the whole napalming of Vietnamese peasants part was honorable too?"

The folks who deliberately napalmed Vietnamese civilians were the 'good guys', the NVA. They just used flamethrowers to do it up and close.

"I'm not sure 2000 really counts here as neither Bush nor Gore had a particularly distinguished military record."

Gore served in Vietnam as a journalist, even though he had the opportunity not to. His service record wasn't as distinguished as Kerry's or McCain's, but certainly more than Bush's.

Actually, Campesino, John Kerry's retirement plan was to shore up social security. Bush and McCain advocated dismantling it.

I suspect there's always been a lot of resentment for Kerry for becoming successful and marrying well, while not trying to pretend to be a cowboy who hates the poor. It's not that Republicans merely disagree with rich Democrats, it's that they take it so personally, as though they've committed some offense by being rich and remaining a Democrat, rather than internalizing the resentments and hostility towards the poor that republicans consider it their birthright to engage in.


Posted by Tyro | April 1, 2008 1:19 PM

*************************************************

I just couldn't resist pointing out the Kerry retirement plan after Matt's snark. People in glass houses and all.

Actually Matt's statement was even more off the mark in that McCain's "retirement plan" is really based on the 22 years he spent in the Navy. I'd say he earned that.

Gore served in Vietnam as a journalist, even though he had the opportunity not to. His service record wasn't as distinguished as Kerry's or McCain's, but certainly more than Bush's.


Posted by DanL | April 1, 2008 3:29 PM
************************************************

Gore spent 5 months in country, less than half of the normal tour. He was treated with kid gloves as his father was a Senator.
***********************************************

According to Michael O'Hara, Gore's closest army buddy, "We never pulled guard duty in the field because we weren't part of those units. The only place we stood guard was back at Bien Hoa," the secure base where Gore lived. "It was the equivalent of being a school crossing guard. I know guys that didn't even take their rifles with them." (The National Review, November, 1999) Other soldiers with long experience in Vietnam said that Gore was treated differently from his fellow enlistees. H. Alan Leo, a photographer in the press brigade office where Gore worked as a reporter, said soldiers were ordered to keep Gore out of harm's way. "It blew me away," Leo said. "I was to make sure he didn't get into a situation he could not get out of. They didn't want him to get into trouble. So we went into the field after the fact [after combat actions], and that limited his exposure to any hazards." (Los Angeles Times 10/15/99) Leo described his half-dozen or so trips into the field with Gore as situations where "I could have worn a tuxedo." (Newsweek, 12/6/99)
***********************************************

But good for him - he deserves credit for never running as a war hero candidate and never seems to have tried to make a lot of his record

Campesino, you seem to lack understanding of what it means to live in a glass house. There's nothing wrong with marrying well. There is something wrong with doing so and forgetting that not everyone is going to be able to do so. I've always found the ire directed at Kerry for being a rich guy who married a rich woman to be nothing less than bizarre.

(Also, IIRC, the pension for 20 years in the service is nice but not enough to retire on)

As to the Stoller point, not just that the less-impressive military record won 4 times in a row. The two winners were quite conspicuously "draft dodgers" (one out of genuine conscience, the other guided by rich-boy goof-offery but it hardly matters).
*************************************************

I've often wondered how you can call Bush a "draft dodger" when he spent 22 months on active duty.

Bill Clinton of course is another story

I do not think it's wise to pin one's hopes on John McCain making the same mistakes as Bob Dole. It could happen but it's not at all a sure thing. They played opposite roles in Congress--facilitator/conciliator vs. "maverick," and I think this is strong in public image as well.

"try to take advantage of older people's potential discomfort with the idea of a woman or a black man in the White House that doesn't involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way"

Why don't you think the McCain campaign or its 527 surrogates won't exploit racism or sexism? It has worked in the past.

Props to you Campesino. I'm amazed that anyone still has the guts to say something like this:

"I've often wondered how you can call Bush a "draft dodger" when he spent 22 months on active duty."

Look....your guy won. You don't have to debase yourself any more. Two terms in fact! You guys made a more compelling case to the American people at least one of those elections, maybe two. So at any time you can feel free to drop the defense of Bush's 'military service'.

What he did, and how he did it - from getting the literally 1-per-2000-applicant national guard slot by way of a blue-blooded/connected-as-connected-can-get family - to the farcical service record of no-shows, unexplained hiatuses and poor performance - is and always has been completely and utterly indefensible....both by itself, and in comparison with any other politician including Bill Clinton. (give the guy credit, at least Clinton was a self-made string-puller - he didn't have a family of connections to call on)

2 guys standing around watching a house burn. 1 guy runs down the street for the express purpose of not getting called on to save the baby inside. 1 guy runs to the fire station, puts on a uniform, and starts to vacuum the carpet, also for the express purpose of not getting called on to go inside the burning building. I'm ok if you want to call them both geniuses. I'm ok if you want to call them both cowards. But making the second guy out to be different than the first guy in terms of guts or integrity is utterly ludicrous. You really don't seem like the type to fall for labels like 'active service' and campaign PR stunts.

Dole was a WW-2 vet who ran an incredibly lazy and lackluster campaign at a pre-9/11 time of peace and prosperity.

Kerry, his story and his campaign are in no way the equivalent of McCain and his. Not even close. Kerry was out of the war in well under a year. That was far, far from the case with McCain who suffered enormously and behaved in a truly impressive fashion for several horrific years. Kerry, too, was disliked, sometimes hated, by many veterans for the theatrics and rhetoric of much of his initial post-service anti-war activism. You can ague about the validity of the anger Kerry inspired, but it was quite real and preceded the appalling treatment he later received from the media and conservatives when he then was, yes, "swiftboated." Alas, there's a difference between being attacked for your military service from the political right (appalling and despicable but it worked, in part because it wasn't fought aggressively and promlty enough) and the left (don't even think about it. It'd be handing the election to the Republicans.)

The idea that at a time of war McCain's impressive record during the Vietnam War won't resonate with voters (male especially) in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio is just ludicrous. It will.

That doesn't mean McCain will win. That doesn't mean he'd make a good president.

But it does mean that his war record is impressive and it will impress people in places where men (and their sons) actually go and fight in wars they support, rather than just blog in support of them!

Places Matt and his friends evidently are totally clueless about.

What's more, these voters are, also, going to be impressed that McCain's son is in Iraq.

It's a smart strategy. McCain's story is all he has. That Matt can't even acknowledge this is just staggering.

Matt is really, really bad on this topic. Really bad.

It would seem to be a combo of rage at McCain, fury at the idea that a war hero might be impressive to many (and with good reason) and finally the incredible, just mind-blowing, just off the charts provincialism of the young Harvard progressive. I have no idea what the ratio of factors is, but it's really Goddamn tedious at this juncture.

Is Matt really so ignorant that he thinks working-class whites in the Rust Belt who have vets in thier families and actually know people who served in Iraq aren't going to be impressed by McCain's history in Nam (the "biography tour")?

If he really is that clueless, the Atlantic might want to contemplate an Affirmative Action program for political bloggers who attended public school in the U.S., grew up west of the Hudson River or didn't attend an Ivy Leauge college. Any blogger who met even one - just one! - of those requirements would make a really nice contrast to Megan, Andrew, Ross and Matt at this sorry point.

Dole was a WW-2 vet who ran an incredibly lazy and lackluster campaign at a pre-9/11 time of peace and prosperity.

Kerry, his story and his campaign are in no way the equivalent of McCain and his. Not even close. Kerry was out of the war in well under a year. That was far, far from the case with McCain who suffered enormously and behaved in a truly impressive fashion for several horrific years. Kerry, too, was disliked, sometimes hated, by many veterans for the theatrics and rhetoric of much of his initial post-service anti-war activism. You can ague about the validity of the anger Kerry inspired, but it was quite real and preceded the appalling treatment he later received from the media and conservatives when he then was, yes, "swiftboated." Alas, there's a difference between being attacked for your military service from the political right (appalling and despicable but it worked, in part because it wasn't fought aggressively and promlty enough) and the left (don't even think about it. It'd be handing the election to the Republicans.)

The idea that at a time of war McCain's impressive record during the Vietnam War won't resonate with voters (male especially) in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio is just ludicrous. It will.

That doesn't mean McCain will win. That doesn't mean he'd make a good president.

But it does mean that his war record is impressive and it will impress people in places where men (and their sons) actually go and fight in wars they support, rather than just blog in support of them!

Places Matt and his friends evidently are totally clueless about.

What's more, these voters are, also, going to be impressed that McCain's son is in Iraq.

It's a smart strategy. McCain's story is all he has. That Matt can't even acknowledge this is just staggering.

Matt is really, really bad on this topic. Really bad.

It would seem to be a combo of rage at McCain, fury at the idea that a war hero might be impressive to many (and with good reason) and finally the incredible, just mind-blowing, just off the charts provincialism of the young Harvard progressive. I have no idea what the ratio of factors is, but it's really Goddamn tedious at this juncture.

Is Matt really so ignorant that he thinks working-class whites in the Rust Belt who have vets in thier families and actually know people who served in Iraq aren't going to be impressed by McCain's history in Nam (the "biography tour")?

If he really is that clueless, the Atlantic might want to contemplate an Affirmative Action program for political bloggers who attended public school in the U.S., grew up west of the Hudson River or didn't attend an Ivy Leauge college. Any blogger who met even one - just one! - of those requirements would make a really nice contrast to Megan, Andrew, Ross and Matt at this sorry point.

Dole was a WW-2 vet who ran an incredibly lazy and lackluster campaign at a pre-9/11 time of peace and prosperity.

Kerry, his story and his campaign are in no way the equivalent of McCain and his. Not even close. Kerry was out of the war in well under a year. That was far, far from the case with McCain who suffered enormously and behaved in a truly impressive fashion for several horrific years. Kerry, too, was disliked, sometimes hated, by many veterans for the theatrics and rhetoric of much of his initial post-service anti-war activism. You can ague about the validity of the anger Kerry inspired, but it was quite real and preceded the appalling treatment he later received from the media and conservatives when he then was, yes, "swiftboated." Alas, there's a difference between being attacked for your military service from the political right (appalling and despicable but it worked, in part because it wasn't fought aggressively and promlty enough) and the left (don't even think about it. It'd be handing the election to the Republicans.)

The idea that at a time of war McCain's impressive record during the Vietnam War won't resonate with voters (male especially) in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio is just ludicrous. It will.

That doesn't mean McCain will win. That doesn't mean he'd make a good president.

But it does mean that his war record is impressive and it will impress people in places where men (and their sons) actually go and fight in wars they support, rather than just blog in support of them!

Places Matt and his friends evidently are totally clueless about.

What's more, these voters are, also, going to be impressed that McCain's son is in Iraq.

It's a smart strategy. McCain's story is all he has. That Matt can't even acknowledge this is just staggering.

Matt is really, really bad on this topic. Really bad.

It would seem to be a combo of rage at McCain, fury at the idea that a war hero might be impressive to many (and with good reason) and finally the incredible, just mind-blowing, just off the charts provincialism of the young Harvard progressive. I have no idea what the ratio of factors is, but it's really Goddamn tedious at this juncture.

Is Matt really so ignorant that he thinks working-class whites in the Rust Belt who have vets in thier families and actually know people who served in Iraq aren't going to be impressed by McCain's history in Nam (the "biography tour")?

If he really is that clueless, the Atlantic might want to contemplate an Affirmative Action program for political bloggers who attended public school in the U.S., grew up west of the Hudson River or didn't attend an Ivy Leauge college. Any blogger who met even one - just one! - of those requirements would make a really nice contrast to Megan, Andrew, Ross and Matt at this sorry point.

What he did, and how he did it - from getting the literally 1-per-2000-applicant national guard slot by way of a blue-blooded/connected-as-connected-can-get family - to the farcical service record of no-shows, unexplained hiatuses and poor performance - is and always has been completely and utterly indefensible....both by itself, and in comparison with any other politician including Bill Clinton. (give the guy credit, at least Clinton was a self-made string-puller - he didn't have a family of connections to call on)
*************************************************
Please stop this, you can't be serious.

Poor Bill Clinton, no help at all worming his way out of military service
*************************************************

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp

or

Summer 1968 - Political and family influence keeps Clinton out of the draft. Robert Corrado -- the only surviving Hot Springs draft board member from that period -- concluded that Clinton's draft statement (the long delays) was the result of "some form of preferential treatment." According to the Times, "Corrado recalled that the chairman of the three-man draft panel ... once held back Clinton's file with the explanation that 'we've got to give him time to go to Oxford,' where the semester began in the fall of 1968.
Corrado also complained that he was called by an aide to then Senator J. William Fulbright urging him and his fellow board members to 'give every consideration' to keep Clinton out of the draft so he could attend Oxford.
Throughout the remainder of 1968, Corrado said, Clinton's draft file was routinely held back from consideration by the full board. Consequently, although he was classified 1-A on March 20, 1968, he was not called for his physical exam until Feb 3, 1969, while he was at Oxford.
Clinton's Uncle Raymond Clinton personally lobbied Senator Fulbright, William S. Armstrong, the chairman of the three-man Hot Springs draft board, and Lt. Comdr. Trice Ellis, Jr., commanding officer of the local Navy reserve unit, to obtain a slot for Clinton in the Naval Reserve.
Clinton secured a "standard enlisted man's billet, not an officer's slot which would have required Clinton to serve two years on active duty beginning within 12 months of his acceptance." This Navy Reserve assignment was "created especially for the Bill Clinton at a time in 1968 when no existing reserve slots were open in his hometown unit."
According to the LA Times, "after about two weeks waiting for Bill Clinton to arrive for his preliminary interview and physical exam, Ellis said he called (Clinton's uncle) Raymond to inquire - 'What happened to that boy?' According to Ellis, Clinton's uncle replied - 'Don't worry about it. He won't be coming down. "It's all been taken care of.' "
--[LA Times Sep 02 92]

Clinton benefited from yet another lobbying campaign in order to evade this induction notice. "Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who has said he did not pull strings to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was able to get his Army induction notice canceled in the summer of 1969 after a lobbying effort directed at the Republican head of the state draft agency." Arrangements were made for Clinton to meet with Col. Williard A. Hawkins who "was the only person in Arkansas with authority to rescind a draft notice. ... The apparently successful appeal to Hawkins was planned while Clinton was finishing his first year as a Rhodes scholar in England. Clinton's former friend and Oxford classmate, Cliff Jackson -- now an avowed political critic of the candidate -- said it was pursued immediately upon Clinton's return to AR in early July 1969 to beat a July 28 deadline for induction."
-- [LA Times Sep 26 92]

Is Matt really so ignorant that he thinks working-class whites in the Rust Belt who have vets in thier families and actually know people who served in Iraq aren't going to be impressed by McCain's history in Nam (the "biography tour")?

If he really is that clueless, the Atlantic might want to contemplate an Affirmative Action program for political bloggers who attended public school in the U.S., grew up west of the Hudson River or didn't attend an Ivy Leauge college. Any blogger who met even one - just one! - of those requirements would make a really nice contrast to Megan, Andrew, Ross and Matt at this sorry point.


Posted by One Tired Nation | April 2, 2008 12:20 AM

*************************************************

I think really in the long run, MY's career would be greatly enhanced if he quit his current job and moved anywhere west of the Alleghenies and east of the Sierras and just worked at a regular job (non-government!!) for four or five years. Then resume opining in public. Though a smart lad, he currently has no clue of the worldview of most of the population

Really gives a different spin to "head in the sand"

Sanjay: "the Republican line is, the anti-McCain dialogue comes from a bunch of people who have no clue whatever what McCain's family's service record is worth"

Exactly what is his FAMILY'S service record worth, Sanjay?

Huh?

What?

You're not voting for his fuckin' family, you're voting for a jerk off who was an incompetent military man and who is clueless about just about everything of concern to the US electorate: economics, foreign policy, you name it.

If your notion is that the GOP is running on the idiocy of the US electorate, then say so. I would not be surprised at that, nor surprised to see McCain win on the basis of it.

But complaining that pointing that out is somehow "insulting" to morons - is - moronic.

The same argument, by the way, applies to Campesino's bullshit.

If McCain's service record is all he's running on, and if that's the only think you morons in this country think is important, then by all means vote him in and complete the utter destruction of the US military and the US economy.

Because that's what he's going to do.

Nitwits. Take this bullshit down the road.

McCain is a war hero because he could have left Hell anytime he wanted to. He acted honorably stayed for over 5 years for his fellow POWs.

His actions speak louder to his character than any words or speeches can.

Here's Howard Dean in 2004:

"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Does it matter to him today what he said four years ago?


P.S.--As a combat veteran, I recognize Bill Clinton as a genuine draft dodger. I wouldn't use the same term to describe a guy who loggged a lot of hours in an F-102.

Mr. Hack, by what criteria do you judge McCain to be an "incompetent military man?" Have you encountered anyone who served with him who shares that view? (By the way, I do admire your vulgarity. It's very persuasive.)

I strongly suggest that the Democrats try this line on Social Security, but beware that having any discussion of Social Security opens up the discussion as to why the Democrats, Hiliary and Obama included, have managed to do nothing to help shore up Social Security while the clock keeps ticking till the day Social Security shows up as a line item on the federal budget near the end of the next 8 years, when incoming revenues are outstripped by expenditures.

Meanwhile all those treasury notes in the file cabinets in West Virginia are worth about as much Bear Steans stock.

Is Matt really so ignorant that he thinks working-class whites in the Rust Belt who have vets in thier families and actually know people who served in Iraq aren't going to be impressed by McCain's history in Nam (the "biography tour")?

Is One Tired Nation really so ignorant that he forgets that working-class whites who have vets in their families and actually know people in Iraq might be looking for a president who would get the country the fuck over Vietnam and the desire of certain ageing Americans for a do-over?

Yeah, the 50-year-old whose dad served in 'Nam and whose son or daughter is in Iraq might be impressed by the resume, but he/she will also be packing up razor blades to send in care parcels.

anywhere west of the Alleghenies and east of the Sierras and just worked at a regular job (non-government!!) for four or five years.

And take up bowling? Fucking spare us.

Other soldiers with long experience in Vietnam said that Gore was treated differently from his fellow enlistees. H. Alan Leo, a photographer in the press brigade office where Gore worked as a reporter, said soldiers were ordered to keep Gore out of harm's way.

It was Richard Nixon's crew who made sure that Gore was kept out of harm's way in Vietnam. Albert Gore Sr. was a strong opponent of US involvement in Vietnam. He was up for re-election in 1970 and was a major target for political defeat by Tricky Dick and the Republicans.

Nixon figured that if Al Gore Jr was put into harm's way and was either wounded or acted heroically it would benefit his father's Senate campaign. Nixon first delayed Al Junior's orders to go to Vietnam and then made sure he was kept far away from any combat situation once he got there.

And take up bowling? Fucking spare us.

Is this supposed to be a pun?

Gore said in 1988 that his experience in Vietnam:

"...didn't change my conclusions about the war being a terrible mistake, but it struck me that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom. Coming face to face with those sentiments expressed by people who did the laundry and ran the restaurants and worked in the fields was something I was naively unprepared for."

James Taranto says it best: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120723977702086773.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today)

Wait, it gets worse. According to The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias, McCain doesn't even need to dog-whistle Dixie in order to be making appeals to racism. Yglesias opines that for McCain merely to talk about his military record is "the best way I can think of to try to take advantage of older people's potential discomfort with the idea of a woman or a black man in the White House that doesn't involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way" (emphasis his).

This is a bit confusing, since it implies that Yglesias believes there are creditable ways to exploit "older people's" purported racial prejudices. Besides, as blogger Tom Maguire points out, anyone who is disinclined to vote for Obama because he is black probably won't have too much trouble ascertaining that McCain is a person of pallor.

But you can see where all this is going. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the liberal message will be that a vote for McCain is a vote for racism. Our guess it that this will not be a winning campaign strategy: Most nonblack voters will be put off by this kind of crude moral intimidation.

If McCain wins, liberal mythmakers will insist it is because America is a racist country, and their logic will be as airtight as Stoller's and Yglesias's. Whether for political reasons or out of their own moral vanity, those who claim they want "racial reconciliation" are all too eager to practice divisive, if stupid, politics.

James Taranto says it best: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120723977702086773.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today)

Wait, it gets worse. According to The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias, McCain doesn't even need to dog-whistle Dixie in order to be making appeals to racism. Yglesias opines that for McCain merely to talk about his military record is "the best way I can think of to try to take advantage of older people's potential discomfort with the idea of a woman or a black man in the White House that doesn't involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way" (emphasis his).

This is a bit confusing, since it implies that Yglesias believes there are creditable ways to exploit "older people's" purported racial prejudices. Besides, as blogger Tom Maguire points out, anyone who is disinclined to vote for Obama because he is black probably won't have too much trouble ascertaining that McCain is a person of pallor.

But you can see where all this is going. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the liberal message will be that a vote for McCain is a vote for racism. Our guess it that this will not be a winning campaign strategy: Most nonblack voters will be put off by this kind of crude moral intimidation.

If McCain wins, liberal mythmakers will insist it is because America is a racist country, and their logic will be as airtight as Stoller's and Yglesias's. Whether for political reasons or out of their own moral vanity, those who claim they want "racial reconciliation" are all too eager to practice divisive, if stupid, politics.

Posted by mpowell | April 1, 2008 12:23 PM

"Why are there so many assclowns running around out there?"

Do the world a favor mpowell: kill yourself so that there will be one fewer.

Well Neil,

What do you do when somebody shoots down a plane you're flying over enemy territory? Teleport back to your home planet?

Oh that's right, you have no idea how to fly a plane and wouldn't have the guts to volunteer to do it, much less the skill to survive when you get shot down.

Your seething jealousy of someone else's courage and honor says so much about your character.

Whore? Drag Queen? etc,etc,etc. Why are you Dems so abusive to another? No, hang on, why are you so abusive full stop? I thought you were supposed to be the nice people who really CARED for your fellow citizens.

The opinions expressed in this column ARE supposed to be part of an April Fool's prank, right? Some of the comments were pretty funny too. Well, I'm off.


Comments closed April 15, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.