Why won't McCain release his fully military records?

[barts]

Quote by: grandpa Because it's irrelevant to his policies, and should be regarded as such. This theory that politicians should be veterans (or Christians, or married) should be rejected outright. The attention should primarily be on the issues. It's sort of like when a person criticizes other nations' policies (such as Sharia Law and human rights in the Islamic World). Yes, we should do that to an extent, but the focus should really be on us and what we're doing. People should primarily focus on their own abusive governments, not on how much of a Rambo a particular candidate has been or how wicked some other country is. Grandpa h.

You and I are in total agreement. However, in the real world of political campaigns if one candidate is going to exploit a characteristic that you and I consider should be irrelevant but others put great store in, that quality, of political necessity, must be addressed. Too many Americans believe that being a POW makes McCain more qualified to be President. That is nonsense, but it is politically real. Consequently, the POW imprimatur needs to be questioned. If McCaiin deserves "hero" status--as his military records might support--fine. However, if they show him to be a sham, the American voters deserves to know before they cast their vote.

McCain, the Maverick and POW hero, is a fraud. He is one the most unethical politicians in Washington. And, will be, if elected, perhaps the most dangerous President America will have ever suffered under.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barts You and I are in total agreement. However, in the real world of political campaigns if one candidate is going to exploit a characteristic that you and* I consider should be irrelevant but others put great store in, that quality, of political necessity, must be addressed.

It should be addressed, but only to an extent. Let me put it this way: If you believe in the election process as it is, and support political campaigns that might actually get your candidates into office, these stupid character traits are going to be hammered into potential voters' heads. There's already a lot of focus on them, which means things will remain the same. However, if you want a different election process, or even none at all, you better go out of your way to address different concerns. Not only does that seem smarter, but, presumably, it could better enhance the quality of life for every "citizen."

Grandpa h.

[barts]

Quote by: grandpa It should be addressed, but only to an extent. Let me put it this way: If you believe in the election process as it is, and support political campaigns that might actually get your candidates into office, these stupid character traits are going to be hammered into potential voters' heads. There's already a lot of focus on them, which means things will remain the same. However, if you want a different election process, or even none at all, you better go out of your way to address different concerns. Not only does that seem smarter, but, presumably, it could better enhance the quality of life for every "citizen." Grandpa h.

The practical problem, however, is that the current US electoral system--including the press--is deeply flawed and grotesquely undemocratic. Among the democracies, the U.S. electoral system is arguably the least democratic and most corrupt. Where else in the world is a condition of voting revealing your political party preference?

For candidates who hold the views you express above--and I think Obama is one of them--their immediate problem is getting elected in the fetid swamp of uninformed voters, shallow media, gerrymandered congressional districts, and corrupt election financing. Only after an election could any politician begin to address the concerns you raise.

On the one hand I agree with all you say. On the other hand, the on-the-ground demands of getting elected today in America mean the high road is the surest way to defeat. Would that it wasn't so.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barts The practical problem, however, is that the current US electoral system--including the press--is deeply flawed and grotesquely undemocratic. Among the democracies, the U.S. electoral system is arguably the least democratic and most corrupt.

What you say is proved further by this halfbaked case before us. And, in case you didn't notice, the media will never visit the other side to see what's going on -- I mean the side that is actually against these most corrupt elections and this highly undemocratic system. It's almost like my view does not and could not exist and be examined by the media.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

Quote by: grandpa ... the media will never visit the other side to see what's going on -- I mean the side that is actually against these most corrupt elections and this highly undemocratic system. It's almost like my view does not and could not exist and be examined by the media. Grandpa h.

It is curious that the media in its various manifestations doesn't question the fundamental, anti-democratic nature of the US electoral system. It's common place to hear media commentators extol, even deify, America's democracy. Even when someone like Ralph Nader discusses how the electoral system stifles democratic rights and values, the media treat him as if his statements are ludicrous and fringe rantings. Yet anyone who has studied political and electoral systems knows that the American system is in need of fundamental reform, that is if a democracy is something that the American people truly aspire to have.

I confess, however, I'm at a loss as to how America could make the transition from what it is now to a real democracy. Perhaps starting with more progressive states that enjoy a better educated electorate like Massachusetts is a possibility. Maybe if an example was set, other citizens would notice, and other states would follow.

We seem to be getting off topic.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barts It is curious that the media in its various manifestations doesn't question the fundamental, anti-democratic nature of the US electoral system. It's common place to hear media commentators extol, even deify, America's democracy.

That's brecause the believe the promise, AKA the lie that is our electoral system, our so-called "democracy." Of course, nothing is truly democratic or apolitical, which is why the media focuses on the whole character trait thing in its electoral coverage. Those are actually the least political things to focus on.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

This is interesting: newly discovered video of McCain's release. McCain trades on his ill treatment and torture at the hands of the Vietnamese, but these guys including McCain appear to be in pretty good shape. What gives?

[bispango]

no offense but one. who in the world cares about his military history as a soldier i vote based on policys not on the past even if this pow stuff is completely fabricated just being in the armed forces is more than Obamas past/experience/taxing/factors . 2. democracy is at root flawed because humanity is self centered(not that bad) and if ever one who voted had 140+ IQ and had no emotion then we would be in very very good shape (too many people vote on issues not based on what is good for the country but what feels moral to them

[grandpa]

Quote by: bispango no offense but one. who in the world cares about his military history as a soldier i vote based on policys not on the past even if this pow stuff is completely fabricated just being in the armed forces is more than Obamas past/experience/taxing/factors.

Exactly. Why should his military experience be used in the current context, anyway? He's running to be President of the United States, not POW in Chief. Military experience is not more important than the truth.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

Quote by: bispango no offense but one. who in the world cares about his military history as a soldier

In fact, everyone in the world cares about his military history, because McCain and his campaign are making them care.

Perhaps his military career shouldn't matter, but the fact that it's raised routinely--by McCain, by the press, by the Republicans, by Palin, by "everyone"--means it in fact does matter. You have some choice about what matters to you. You have almost no choice about what matters to others. Those are the facts of this case.

[barts]

Quote by: grandpa Exactly. Why should his military experience be used in the current context, anyway? He's running to be President of the United States, not POW in Chief. Military experience is not more important than the truth. Grandpa h.

McCain's military record will offer valuable insights into the sort of man McCain is. Understanding the true John McCain will help voters decide which candidate they'd prefer to be President. How can not knowing something about a candidate inform a decision? You can be sure that if McCain's military record was flattering to him that it would be released in a "New York minute". He's hiding his record because the true John McCain may be, in McCain's view, unelectable.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barts McCain's military record will offer valuable insights into the sort of man McCain is. Understanding the true John McCain will help voters decide which candidate they'd prefer to be President.

If McCain is going to be President, it won't be because of my support. I know enough about him already, and I'm sure that much of what I know is accurate.

Grandpa h.

[bispango]

Quote by: barts McCain's military record will offer valuable insights into the sort of man McCain is. Understanding the true John McCain will help voters decide which candidate they'd prefer to be President. How can not knowing something about a candidate inform a decision? You can be sure that if McCain's military record was flattering to him that it would be released in a "New York minute". He's hiding his record because the true John McCain may be, in McCain's view, unelectable.

and Obama was in the armed forces at all? former drug dealer doesn't sit well with me as president. i can think of multiple reasons why it may be not released the chief being if there was any kind of small issue the Obama campaign would spin it into a huge deal (don't get me wrong republicans do it all the time also, spin docters need work after all)

[Nono]

Quote by: bispango former drug dealer

Source? No off-the-cuff bullshit here, sunshine. Back it up.

[bispango]

his own mouth admitted it one sec ill put up a linkhttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html enough or want more

[barts]

Quote by: bispango ...i can think of multiple reasons why it may be not released the chief being if there was any kind of small issue the Obama campaign would spin it into a huge deal (don't get me wrong republicans do it all the time also, spin docters need work after all)

My point precisely. McCain is likely hiding something that he fears won't bear scrutiny. If his military record, in fact, matched his rhetoric and hero myth, he would have released it.

[bispango]

and even if it doesn't contradict what he has been claiming...
unreleased papers:
pvt.McCain trips and falls on running exercise causing whole group to fall

Obama campaign: my opponent fell on purpose and caused two fine soldiers to break their legs causing us to lose Vietnam.

OK that example was a bit extreme but it happens somewhat

[barts]

Quote by: bispango and even if it doesn't contradict what he has been claiming... unreleased papers: pvt.McCain trips and falls on running exercise causing whole group to fall Obama campaign: my opponent fell on purpose and caused two fine soldiers to break their legs causing us to lose Vietnam. OK that example was a bit extreme but it happens somewhat

You think that is why McCain won't release his military record? Do you truly believe that something trivial would prevail in the media. Perhaps you're right. John "I approve this lie" McCain turned an idiom--lipstick on pig--into a national emergency through false outrage and fabrication.

[Nono]

Quote by: bispango his own mouth admitted it one sec ill put up a linkhttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html

Bingo, bis. You've just demonstrated you don't have a leg to stand on.

[bispango]

nono i was in a hurry ok i could find a better source than an editorial but that wasn't my main point

bart, yes i do believe that it is one of the reasons why. so many small things become huge media events ex. when the asteroid came with the microbes that "could be from mars" and the media hyped it into little green men for sure from mars ( and no nono im not going to give you a source because media blow ups happens all the time and i think no one here debates that and the mars thing was the first thing that came to mind)