Have You Heard McCain Was a POW?

Candidates whose biographies provide compelling campaign material use that fact to their advantage. And John McCain's biography does just that. Not only is it regularly mentioned explicitly by his supporters, but it underlies many of the implicit themes of the campaign. Which is really no surprise since it was his war record that launched his status as a political celebrity (feted by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan) and fueled his rise in the early days (I've seen a John Birch Society newsletter featuring an interview with McCain the "War Hero Who's Running for Barry Goldwater's Seat" from the 1980s) as a man without deep roots in Arizona sought to beat out rivals in a competitive primary.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, it's how politics works. But as Brendan Nyhan points out the press has a baffling habit of constantly claiming that McCain doesn't talk about his war record, or labeling each and every one of his frequent references to it as a rare break with his usual habit of not talking about his war record. He talks about it all the time!

Comments

That IS shocking news!

I've also recently heard a rumor that Barack Obama is black, although I doubt it is true, since someone surely would have mentioned that before now.

Posted by Al | June 27, 2008 9:53 AM

Indeed, it's been an obvious trait of his at least going back to his 2000 run. I distinctly remember the SNL sketch after the 2000 New Hampshire primary, showing the various candidates having breakfast in their hotel the day after, had Will Ferrell as Bush saying, with extreme sarcasm, "Oh, I'm sorry, were you in Vietnam? I hadn't heard!"

Posted by OhioBoy | June 27, 2008 9:54 AM

I've never understood how having been a POW gives McCain national security cred. Is there anything else in McCain's military history that is of interest? Outstanding accomplishments? If there is, I haven't heard it.

If you really wanted to be shrill you could point out that before McCain was captured he was behind enemy lines, bombing a civilian facility. That doesn't sound very heroic or valorous to me (actually, doesn't that count as war crime?).

Posted by raff | June 27, 2008 9:54 AM

In fairness, McCain does seem to talk about his war record less than John Kerry, who talked about it every time a microphone was placed in front of him, brought his war buddies on tour, and turned his entire convention speech into a Vietnam Drag Show. McCain tends to only allude to his war record once per speech, which is still fairly ridiculous but pales in comparison.

This problem is, of course, compounded by the media's collective man-crush on Saint Maverick McStraightTalk and their general unwillingness to ever notice any of his character defects.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 27, 2008 9:54 AM

In fairness, McCain does seem to talk about his war record less than John Kerry

This seems like misplaced fairness to me. Is John Kerry running for president? McCain may well talk about his war record less than, say, William Henry Harrison, or my (made-up) great-uncle Larry, but I don't see how that's relevant other than as a hook for finding something "nice" to say about him.

Posted by OhioBoy | June 27, 2008 10:04 AM

I also don't see any problem with McCain talking about his war service and time as a POW (whether I accept whatever he claims those experiences imply is a different matter).

And I also think this has been a foolish political risk for McCain. I guess I get that his fantasy self-image dictates that when it comes to these issues, he should be the strong silent type. The problem is that he is a politician in the real world, and silence is typically not a virtue for politicians. Which of course is why he hasn't been silent on these issues.

Finally, I really doubt the media has much influence on how the public perceives all this. Obviously they are doing him a favor by not pointing out the contradiction between what he said about Kerry in 2004 and what he actually did in 2000 and what he is doing now. But I seriously doubt the public has the impression McCain is actually silent about these issues. Indeed, I think if they were aware of any claims to the contrary, they would immediately see the contradiction.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 10:07 AM

Is there anything else in McCain's military history that is of interest? Outstanding accomplishments?

Well, I read that he did manage to crash 5 planes.

What I want to know is what kind of track record does his rhetoric show over the years. Does he almost always break towards confrontation (military or otherwise) rather than diplomacy? We already know he did on Iraq and N. Korea, and we know his feelings about Iran. I don't want a president who says he hates war, but doesn't understand diplomacy.

Reminds me of the Bush "strong dollar policy", in which he claims to support a strong dollar while pushing policies that destroy it.

Posted by LFC | June 27, 2008 10:09 AM

There is an interesting dynamic here that Matt might take time to analyze. McCain's status as a hero is not dependent on him just being a POW, but on his being tortured while a POW. Yet a recent poll says that something line 44% of Americans think torture is OK. And probably many of them are in McCain's base. So McCain is a hero for enduring something many Americans think is OK.

Is there any cognitive dissonance here? Or do they just shrug this off by assuming that when the U.S. tortures its OK, but when other people do its bad?

Posted by Cap and Gown | June 27, 2008 10:26 AM

McCain is entitled to talk about Vietnam, but that he does it so much won't help him. For many, it only perpetuates that a) he loves war and b) he's old. The problem is he doesn't really have much legislative philosophy to stand on besides being all mavericky and stuff.

Posted by asl | June 27, 2008 10:31 AM

The time as a POW would give him a powerful voice to talk about the reasons we should not use torture, both what it makes of its practitioners and what little practical use it has. Up to last year he seemed to do that; then it was time to move right on that issue. As an independent, one of my greatest disappointments with McCain.

Posted by Deborah | June 27, 2008 10:38 AM

McCain was definitely in pain while a POW due to his broken arm, but there's no evidence, beyond his assertion, that he was tortured and considerable evidence that he wasn't.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 27, 2008 10:50 AM

As pointed out above, McCain had the dubious distinction of being a "reverse ace" having lost five of his own planes. At least three of those appear to be from negligence on McCain's part. Inquiries were held each time, but the records of those inquiries have never been made public. Also, he never got a command above squadron commander (75 planes). He was never given a ship command even though he achieved the rank of captain -- that's got to be the only time that's ever happened in the history of the Navy. Finally, he was awarded twenty-eight combat medals for twenty hours of combat. I mention that since Kerry's medals were such a big deal in the last election. I expect to see the media looking into McCain's record very soon.

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 27, 2008 10:54 AM

If you really wanted to be shrill you could point out that before McCain was captured he was behind enemy lines, bombing a civilian facility. That doesn't sound very heroic or valorous to me (actually, doesn't that count as war crime?).

You could point that out, but you would be wrong. LBJ & the JCOS made it clear that targets in Hanoi were military or essential infrastructure.

Not that a silly commenter like this specimen above has any cred whatsoever.

I wonder if this specimen of lying cowardice has ever served his country in any positive context. Sounds like a lawyer/liar.

Posted by daveinboca | June 27, 2008 10:54 AM

If you really wanted to be shrill you could point out that before McCain was captured he was behind enemy lines, bombing a civilian facility. That doesn't sound very heroic or valorous to me (actually, doesn't that count as war crime?).

You could point that out, but you would be wrong. LBJ & the JCOS made it clear that targets in Hanoi were military or essential infrastructure.

Not that a silly commenter like this specimen above has any cred whatsoever.

I wonder if this specimen of lying cowardice has ever served his country in any positive context. Sounds like a lawyer/liar.

Posted by daveinboca | June 27, 2008 10:55 AM

If you really wanted to be shrill you could point out that before McCain was captured he was behind enemy lines, bombing a civilian facility. That doesn't sound very heroic or valorous to me (actually, doesn't that count as war crime?).

You could point that out, but you would be wrong. LBJ & the JCOS made it clear that targets in Hanoi were military or essential infrastructure.

Not that a silly commenter like this specimen above has any cred whatsoever.

I wonder if this specimen of lying cowardice has ever served his/her country in any positive context. Sounds like a lawyer/liar.

Posted by daveinboca | June 27, 2008 10:55 AM

If you really wanted to be shrill you could point out that before McCain was captured he was behind enemy lines, bombing a civilian facility. That doesn't sound very heroic or valorous to me (actually, doesn't that count as war crime?).

You could point that out, but you would be wrong. LBJ & the JCOS made it clear that targets in Hanoi were military or essential infrastructure.

Not that a silly commenter like this specimen above has any cred whatsoever.

I wonder if this specimen of lying cowardice has ever served his/her country in any positive context. Sounds like a lawyer/liar.

Posted by daveinboca | June 27, 2008 10:55 AM

If you really wanted to be shrill you could point out that before McCain was captured he was behind enemy lines, bombing a civilian facility. That doesn't sound very heroic or valorous to me (actually, doesn't that count as war crime?).

You could point that out, but you would be wrong. LBJ & the JCOS made it clear that targets in Hanoi were military or essential infrastructure.

Not that a silly commenter like this specimen above has any cred whatsoever.

I wonder if this specimen of lying cowardice has ever served his/her country in any positive context. Sounds like a lawyer/liar.

Posted by daveinboca | June 27, 2008 10:55 AM

As pointed out above, McCain had the dubious distinction of being a "reverse ace" having lost five of his own planes. At least three of those appear to be from negligence on McCain's part. Inquiries were held each time, but the records of those inquiries have never been made public. Also, he never got a command above squadron commander (75 planes). He was never given a ship command even though he achieved the rank of captain -- that's got to be the only time that's ever happened in the history of the Navy. Finally, he was awarded twenty-eight combat medals for twenty hours of combat. I mention that since Kerry's medals were such a big deal in the last election. I expect to see the media looking into McCain's record very soon.

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 27, 2008 10:58 AM

While talking about his time as a POW, does McCain ever mention the 30-some propoganda tapes he made for the North Vietnamese? Does anyone ever ask him about them? He says he was tortured and that's why he did it but says he gave them false information. That's a good argument against using torture to gather intelligence, people being tortured will say anythng to make it stop. You get the answers you're looking for. On the other hand, if he WASN'T tortured-- which the North Vietnames insist is the truth-- then McCain sang for no reason at all. Hardly heroic, hardly presidential.

Posted by drp | June 27, 2008 11:19 AM

Too many superfluous posts, including this one. Somebody ought to do something about this.

Posted by Henderstock | June 27, 2008 11:22 AM

re: daveinboca

What do you know, A McCain supporter who doesn't know how to use a computer.

Posted by John | June 27, 2008 11:27 AM

But as Brendan Nyhan points out the press has a baffling habit of constantly claiming that McCain doesn't talk about his war record, or labeling each and every one of his frequent references to it as a rare break with his usual habit of not talking about his war record. He talks about it all the time!

Nyhan's only example is one link to a Politico article written by a former National Review staffer. I'm not saying it's not true, but is there some actual evidence that the media says McCain rarely talks about his war record?

Posted by JB | June 27, 2008 11:28 AM

Politics is a grrrrreat game.

Posted by Compassionate Badger | June 27, 2008 11:30 AM

McCain has made his combat record fair game by constantly harping on it, and by attacking Obama for not having served in the military.

So here is the truth: after a miserable record at the Naval Academy, he became a ground attack pilot. His entire lifelong combat experience consists of twenty hours of flight time. Twenty hours! That's the great war hero's record. This would be pathetic and ludicrous if it weren't the basis of his claim to be qualified to be president. After being shot down attacking a civilian target, he collaborated with the enemy in a manner which he himself has described as shameful.

This man is a total sham, and the Democrats have a perfect right to see to it that the American people are aware of that fact.

Posted by Green Eagle | June 27, 2008 11:33 AM

"LBJ & the JCOS made it clear that targets in Hanoi were military or essential infrastructure."

This is pretty hilarious. So McCain wasn't attacking civilian infrastructure, he was just attacking essential non-military infrastructure?

Posted by Kalkin | June 27, 2008 11:45 AM

He was never given a ship command even though he achieved the rank of captain -- that's got to be the only time that's ever happened in the history of the Navy.

You obviously know jackshit about how the personnel system works in naval aviation or the navy in general.

Posted by Theodore Ellyson | June 27, 2008 12:03 PM

The notion of John McCain as "hero" is pretty much embedded in the consciousness of the average voter. It would be harder to dislodge than Kerry's reputation because Kerry had already negated his own image as a "hero" by his anti-war stance after Viet Nam.

There is no way, no win, in any attempt to "Swift Boat" McCain. Obama is better off to keep running a pretty classy campaign. While people might be emotionally influenced to vote for McCain because he is a "hero"; in fact whether he really was is totally irrelevant to whether he is the right person to be President now.

Posted by Sherry | June 27, 2008 12:21 PM

I was surprised that no one, including Matt, seemed to notice an article buried in last Sunday's Times: a passel of vets got together to praise Kerry's record and rebut the Swifties. It left many questions in mind, not just about any media bias in not covering it, but even more why it took four years for this to exist. Is it sort of ok to question someone's record as long as they're not supporting a GOP war like McCain and Petraus?

Posted by John Haber | June 27, 2008 12:24 PM

I like how Gen Wesley Clark phrased John McCain's military experience. What he said was that yes he commended McCain for his "SERVICE", but McCain does not actually have any "EXCUTIVE" military experience. After the Vietnam, he obviously didn't return from the Army, so he did not move throught the ranks of the military like Colin Powell, or Gen Clark. Clark also said that yes he has experienced war, but McCain has not had to make any tought military choices.

Posted by lh | June 27, 2008 12:53 PM

Wow, trying to type fast at work...

"EXE"CUTIVE".... After Vietnam war... McCain didn't return to military service....

Sorry

Posted by lh | June 27, 2008 1:07 PM

McCain the "War Hero" is one of the greatest myths of our time.

Given his military record of scandalous behavior, incompetence as an aviator and shown favoritism due to being the son and grandson of US Navy Admirals McCain should be very careful about playing up his military experience.

Remember back in 1999 when he first ran there was a bit of activity from former POW's and military colleagues contradicting much of what now makes up the war hero mythology. That effort never really picked up much steam/attention due to McCain getting out of the race fairly early.

I wonder if many of those same folks will be coming out again in the coming months. I, for one, hope so given that the major media outlets have certainly given McCain a free ride for so many years.

Posted by Stewie | June 27, 2008 1:14 PM

McCain the "War Hero" is one of the greatest myths of our time.

Given his military record of scandalous behavior, incompetence as an aviator and shown favoritism due to being the son and grandson of US Navy Admirals McCain should be very careful about playing up his military experience.

Remember back in 1999 when he first ran there was a bit of activity from former POW's and military colleagues contradicting much of what now makes up the war hero mythology. That effort never really picked up much steam/attention due to McCain getting out of the race fairly early.

I wonder if many of those same folks will be coming out again in the coming months. I, for one, hope so given that the major media outlets have certainly given McCain a free ride for so many years.

Posted by Stewie | June 27, 2008 1:19 PM

Oooops....sorry for the double-post.

The first time I hit submit I got a server error and didn't realize that the comment had in fact been posted.

Posted by Stewie | June 27, 2008 1:22 PM

In countries with real military traditions - Russia, Japan, Israel - being taken prisoner has always been regarded as shameful if not downright treasonous. In Soviet era an aviator with a record like McCain's would probably have been executed immediately upon his return as a Vietnamese spy. In Israel he would be viewed with deep suspicion and contempt. It's probably a good thing that the US is a more tolerant society and more understanding of weak, flawed soldiers, but it certainly is ridiculous to think of McCain as a "hero" by any standard.

Posted by vanya | June 27, 2008 1:28 PM

As Vanya has said - it mystifies me how our nation underwent some psychological change post-Vietnam that we now honor POW's by giving them a medal.

While you can't always blame a GI for being captured I guess I am too old school to believe that that is something one is awarded a medal for.

We can certainly respect the hardship that being a POW sometimes meant but that hardship was no greater (and oftentimes less) than those still active in the fight.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Reagan was the one that authorized the POW medal. He was always one to "romanticize" military conduct and operations while only having served in the trenches of the Hollywood hills.

Posted by Stewie | June 27, 2008 1:51 PM

Sorry, Tehodore, should've written sea command, but you knew what I meant. And what's your views on McCain's violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by having an (admitted) extramarital affair while a naval officer? Doesn't that in itself disqualify him from being president?

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 27, 2008 2:08 PM

In countries with real military traditions - Russia, Japan, Israel - being taken prisoner has always been regarded as shameful if not downright treasonous. In Soviet era an aviator with a record like McCain's would probably have been executed immediately upon his return as a Vietnamese spy. In Israel he would be viewed with deep suspicion and contempt. It's probably a good thing that the US is a more tolerant society and more understanding of weak, flawed soldiers, but it certainly is ridiculous to think of McCain as a "hero" by any standard.

Leaving McCain out of it, what makes you think that captured soldiers are "weak" or flawed"? Do you think soldiers (including those with serious injuries like gunshot wounds to the torso, multiple broken limbs, etc.) should in every circumstance fight to the death to avoid capture?

And do you really think it's only "probably" a good thing that the United States has a different view of its POWs than did the Stalinists? Quite a few Soviet soldiers were captured, endured horrific conditions in NAzi prison camps, escaped, and either made it back to Soviet lines or fought the Nazis as partisans. Many of them were subsequently imprisoned or executed by their own government. By comparison giving repatriated POWs medals may be a silly product of our therapeutic culture but at least keeps the body count down.

Posted by JB | June 27, 2008 2:22 PM

I don't want to vote for a candidate that seeks to discredit or demean other people's war service. It was disgusting when George W. Bush's surrogates did it, and it would be deeply disappointing if Barack Obama's did it (though Barack's classy enough that I'm not too worried). Frankly, I don't care if he wasn't a good pilot or if he cracked under duress and made videos for Ho Chi Minh or whether he was tortured or not. He could have avoided service like the Current Occupant and his Legislative Barnicle, but he didn't, and like John Kerry he deserves props for it.

There are plenty of legitimate points on which to combat McCain. There's no need to resort to hypocrisy.

But yes, he does remind people of it a lot (probably as much as Dole and Kerry did), and it's absolutely predictable that "his base" would pretend like he's coy about it.

Posted by el ranchero | June 27, 2008 2:29 PM

There are plenty of legitimate points on which to combat McCain.

Spewing venom for the sake of it, though possibly gratifying in a "but-they-started-it" way, is certainly untoward and classless.

However, given that his military experience is made central to the idea that he is more prepared to be Commander in Chief, it is definitely worth reviewing what his responsibilites actually were, and how well he did them. That absolutely seems like fair game. Clark is right; service and experience are not really the same.

Posted by Brad L | June 27, 2008 3:45 PM

"Too many superfluous posts, including this one. Somebody ought to do something about this."

Dream on. Matt doesn't even read these posts and doesn't realize how the incompetents at The Atlantic are making him look like an idiot.

"What do you know, A McCain supporter who doesn't know how to use a computer."

No - The Atlantic doesn't know how to use a computer.

Again, for those folks who haven't been clued - do not hit the post button more than once, no matter whether it takes five minutes to respond or you get a server error. The server errors are bogus. Your post made it to the server and will appear on the page - some day when their stupid server remembers to refresh the page.

And Matt needs to get off his butt and complain to The Atlantic about their crappy server configuration.

Do I need to start bugging Matt about this like I bugged him about Iran?

How about this? On some post Matt makes, how about everybody NOT commenting on the post, but merely bitch about the crappy server? Maybe that will give Matt a clue.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 6:24 PM

The left is complaining that the press loves McCain. The right is complaining that Obama gets a free pass.

Posted by S.P. Gass | June 27, 2008 8:46 PM

The right is complaining that Obama gets a free pass.

Except for the whole crucifixion-by-association thing, of course.

What the Right is really saying is that they're frustrated than their inanities don't quite seem to have the traction they used to have.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 27, 2008 9:00 PM

Jeffrey D.: Good point, but the right also seems to be making many of the same arguments as the Clinton campaign regarding press coverage getting caught up in the phenomenon of Obama. I do think that the coverage seems to be changing, however. Jake Tapper, for example, seems to be hammering both sides equally hard.

Posted by S.P. Gass | June 28, 2008 11:55 AM