"That's just plain bulls—t. His pivotal experience was his refusal of early release and the three or four days of torture he took for it, his confession, and his attempted suicide. That was his pivotal experience. He's never represented [the "cross in the dirt" story] to be that."Whatever benefit Obama supporters might get from questioning the "cross in the dirt" story, it is vastly overshadowed by the vivid and terrifying facts of McCain's imprisonment. Why are you creating more occasions for McCain supporters to repeat those facts? I should think you'd want to package his Vietnam past away with some respectful words and return the focus to the present.
But more generally, politicians, including Obama, often impose a religious interpretation on stories about themselves. They prayed, they had faith in God, Jesus led them out of whatever difficulty they encountered. What good is done by questioning that? Oh, did you really pray to God on that occasion? Prove it!
At the Saddleback Civil Forum, Obama said his religion gave him the "confidence" to run for President. You know, I don't believe that, but so what? What the hell difference does it make? I could imagine getting into a huff over the implication that atheists couldn't dare to run for President or that he's incredibly arrogant to suggest that God tapped him on the shoulder and let him know that he's the one. But I'm not in the mood. I'm tolerating all the usual religious frippery. It's the way politicians blather.
Now, yes, the "cross in the dirt" story — or as Andrew Sullivan calls it, "The Dirt In The Cross Story" — purports to describe an event that occurred in the external world, and whether it actually happened seems more specific than whether Senator X thought about Jesus one day. And it is interesting that there's a "cross in the dirt" story in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago." [Or maybe not!] So did McCain lift the story from Solzhenitsyn?
A better question is: Is that the kind of attack you want to make?
You may be so in love with the a-ha you think you've found that you fail to see how ridiculous you sound to people who are not already on your side — i.e., the people you need to persuade.
To help you get a sense of your ridiculousness, let me tell you about the time, long ago, in 1991, at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, when Senator Orrin Hatch wanted to impeach the credibility of Thomas's accuser Anita Hill:
Senator Hatch ... suggested that Professor Hill's account of how Judge Thomas, in the privacy of his office, once remarked to her that someone had put a pubic hair on his can of Coke could have been inspired by a scene in the 1971 novel, "The Exorcist." In that scene a character complains of pubic hair in his glass of gin.Whether Hill was lying or not, the issue of whether she was lifting ideas about pubic hair from "The Exoricist" was perfectly silly and only made her attackers look desperate (and a tad nutty).
पोस्ट्स
२५५ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 255 पैकी 201 – 255This is all mouse-nuts compared to the tragedy of Sen J Edwards being distracted from solving the problem of poverty in America!
And soon they will be trying to distract Sen Obama from giving us hope by asking for access to info from his past with the Annenberg Challenge...
Pinkerton:
re your 6:45 comment:
I’ll skip all the “you’re stupid” comments you hurled at the poster, and I do that in order to make you look better.
“Whether McCain could accurately name a team's starting lineup is not in question.”
Well yes, according to you I think it is. I could be more specific.
“McCain has on several occasions recounted this particular story about his POW experience. No one has challenged his story or required witnesses and documentation. However, the fact that he changed the details of this story to pander to a Pittsburgh audience indicates that he's willing to fib about his experiences."
You say "fibbed" where another might say flubbed. What’s the f’ing difference? I’ll tell you: intent. You seek to impute motive to an inconsistency.
"There's nothing further to be said about the incident either. No one is suggesting or acting on the idea that a campaign strategy be built on this incident."
There’s at least one more thing to be said- see next comment.
“No one is attacking McCain's years as a POW. There seem to be some who are questioning the authenticity of some of McCain's POW stories, but I don't know of any effort by the Democratic Party to do so. Do you, or are you guilty of mindless babbling?"
Get f’ing over yourself. You’re just as another douchebag blog commentator like me.
"For my part, I've questioned the consistency of a single McCain POW story. The McCain campaign acknowledged the inconsistency and attributed it to a "memory lapse." This seems unlikely to me;"
There’s the fib vs. flub thing again. One verb imputes ill motive, the other (at worst) just makes McCain look old and forgetful.
"...a more plausible explanation is that McCain changed the details of the story to pander to his Pittsburgh audience."
Yes if we buy your fib meme, we’ll go down that path.
“However, as I wrote previously, lying does not disqualify politicians from running for or holding office. In my opinion, there's nothing inconsistent with the view that McCain served honorably as a POW and has on at least one occasion fibbed about small details relating to his POW experience.
Yada, yada, yada, bing bang. For a PhD in Physics you sure repeat a lot (I have a PhD too, so I’m sympathetic :))
Congratulations Cyrus, Alpha et.al you have convinced me to vote for McCain. Nice going! I honestly hadn't made up my mind but just the thought of how unhinged creatures like you would be on a McCain win I have to go for it. If I didn't know any better I'd say were in the pay of mccain 08'.
AlphaLiberal said...
I've read about six different liberal writers on the McCain cross-in-the-sand story and they all say something like:...
Really, gang, ducking the hard arguments and playing like you're too dumb too interpret a basic argument is LAME. I know you can read better than that.
Did you ever read even one objective writer on the subject? You are the best comedy act on this board- next to Trooper; he reigns supreme.
Really, alpha, lame is reading subjective partisan hacks to prove a point that is really not worth proving. It is ducking the hard arguments and being too dumb to interpret anything. We know you cannot really read at all.
Keep em coming, I need good laughs today.
Roger J. wrote:
... there are only 125 black people who have earned PhDs in physics since 1985.
What's your source for this?
...for some reason I think they would be department chairs in prestigious schools, otherwise pulling down 7 figure salaries in think tanks...
Young physicists as department chairs? Young physicists pulling down seven figure salaries in think tanks? Wow, you are really out of touch with reality, Roger J. In fact, astonishingly out of touch.
...and not taking up billable hours...
Physicists don't work on "billable hours." You seem to be incredibly ignorant of how the real world operates.
Drop the supercilious bullshit man--you are just another troll.
This from the same fool who routinely accuses me of being Amanda Marcotte. Roger J., in case you are still completely clueless (which at this point seems highly likely), I don't care what you think of me since I don't value your opinion. And as I have explained to you before, your fixation with credentials leads you to periodically post this sort of irrelevant garbage that gets you nowhere. Get over it. Try to post something substantive for a change. And if you can't manage that, try ignoring my posts. Whatever you decide, you can do better than this.
BTW, get back to me about the source for your claim about the number of PhDs in physics for black people. It's the first remotely interesting thing you've posted in a long time.
Pinkerton:
re your 7:21 comment:
“I accept the possibility that McCain suffered from a "memory lapse" (as his campaign claims) in his appearance in Pittsburgh. It seems to me very odd, though, that McCain would become confused about the details of this story given that he's written and talked about it previously and it involves a set of intense experiences in his life. If indeed he suffered a "memory lapse," it's a cause for concern.”
Yes plenty of people are on the look out for signs of McCain being too old.
"Since this claimed "memory lapse" by coincidence looks an awful lot like pandering, it's reasonable to speculate about the possibility that McCain was fibbing."
(and if I can just convince you that McCain was fibbing vs flubbing (or even flipping), I’ve succeeded in attached a bad motive to McCain)
“In fact, the available evidence…”
are you sure that’s all that’s available?
“…suggests that McCain simply changed the details of his story to better suit his audience. I know this opinion is harsh--it makes McCain sound like a politician!"
If your basic premise were true you’d be right, but why is it true?
“Now, because there are a few slow commenters here, I'll repeat that I'm not challenging McCain's original version of the story. I'm simply noting the inconsistency in his two versions (acknowledged by the McCain campaign itself!) and speculating about the reason for the appearance of a second version of the story. The most plausible explanation, IMO, is that McCain fibbed about his POW experiences.”
Fibbed rather than flubbed again- yawn
"It's clear that the notion that a non-Democratic politician might have told a lie is upsetting to some Althouse commenters and, in reponse, they'll try to make the issue about something else that they feel they can defend (e.g., McCain was a POW and he was tortured!). I'm sorry if I've offended any of these tender commenters with my speculation.
No offence taken because I don’t buy what you’re selling
However, since you are well-practiced at ignoring inconvenient facts, I suggest you take a deep breath and quickly move forward to build an hysterical defense against the next outrageous assault on John McCain, apple pie or America by "the left."
Signed sincerely “the right”
BOO!
"I'll repeat that I'm not challenging McCain's original version of the story. I'm simply noting the inconsistency..."
blah blah blah.
In contrast to McCain mixing up two football teams (It's pandering! PANDERING I tell you!!!11!), Obama has secret documents about his meetings with a communist terrorist that he's keeping locked up.
I wonder which issue is more important. Cyrus knows, but he ain't saying. He'll stick with the 'fibbing' (FIBBING!@!) meme.
You know what I find ironic...
In discussing how stupid it is to question the voracity of a McCain Vietnam story, the commenters have chosen to use a story about how McCain gave the names of the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers...
...on a blog authored by a University of Wisconsin Law Professor.
I wonder how many of Ann's former students (like myself) actually like McCain a little bit more as a result (again, like myself).
Just to vouch for my reading comprehension: his book says that he named the starting offensive line for the Packers. Yet, in his CNN interview, he names several players who were not offensive linemen (e.g. Starr and McGee). Based on that, are you really sure he limited his list of names to a single position on a single roster?
If McCain used the story for political expediency, wouldn't he have done so in more than one city? (New York, Dallas, Kansas City, etc.)
From the various posts here, my own included, I am inclined to believe that it was not only very stupid, but one of the dumbest things they could have done.
His campaign must be staffed with Mensa morons, intellectual idiots, and severely handicapped Richard Craniums.
MCG: I'll second that thought.
And it's time for me to hit the road.
Chickenlittle,
If you indeed have a PhD, it must be in a subject that doesn't require the application of logic. You've also made a few reading comprehension blunders, but that's almost not worth noting among this crowd.
Here are a few quick corrections to your mistakes:
1. I wrote “Whether McCain could accurately name a team's starting lineup is not in question.” In other words, it wasn't a matter of McCain forgetting or mistaking names. Rather, he switched the teams (Steelers for Packers) and units (defensive line for offensive line). I have no reason to doubt that given either team and unit, McCain could accurately name the starters.
2. IMO, the most plausible explanation for the second version of his story is that McCain fibbed. If McCain had, while in Pittsburgh, claimed that he named the starters on the Cleveland Browns defensive line, I would attribute the inconsistency in his story to a serious "memory lapse." However, there are several factors that make a "memory lapse" an unlikely explanation for what actually happened. The first is that his substitution of teams and units smells a lot like pandering. The second is that he was talking about the "Steel Curtain" defense when he gave the second version of his story. As I noted previously, the "Steel Curtain" was not formed until 1972, so the timeline is inconsistent. This leads me to believe that McCain likely was fibbing about one of his POW experiences for political purposes.
3. I wrote "No one is attacking McCain's years as a POW. There seem to be some who are questioning the authenticity of some of McCain's POW stories, but I don't know of any effort by the Democratic Party to do so. Do you, or are you guilty of mindless babbling?"
Since you make no attempt to address any of the points here or answer the question I posed, I assume you have nothing substantive to offer in response. In other words, you may be, as you claim, a "douchebag blog commentator," but you are nothing like me.
4. You wrote "There’s the fib vs. flub thing again. One verb imputes ill motive, the other (at worst) just makes McCain look old and forgetful." The available evidence makes "the fib thing" more plausible than the "flub thing." However, if you prefer to think that McCain is just old and forgetful, please, by all means, make that part of your "Vote for McCain" appeal.
5. The reason I repeat myself so often is that the Althouse rightwing commenters are a slow bunch.
Congratulations Cyrus, Alpha et.al you have convinced me to vote for McCain.
Either you're lying or you're incredibly dumb. My guess is probably both.
Imagine, a military man, a POW no less, uses his experience to campaign for Commander in Chief!
Bastard!
Based on that, are you really sure he limited his list of names to a single position on a single roster?
As I've said, I'm quite willing to believe McCain's original version of the story. If he was unable to name the Green Bay offensive line today, it wouldn't bother me at all. This isn't about trivia, it's about consistency in McCain's account of his POW experiences.
The version of the story he gave in Pittsburg is substantially different from the account given in his book (e.g., no mention of the Green Bay Packers at all). The fact that the McCain campaign quickly acknowledged version 2 of the story as a "memory lapse" kills speculation that he named both Green Bay and Pittsburgh players. Nice try, though.
It's really amazing to watch McCain supporters suggest alternatives that aren't consistent with the facts. It's also surprising to see commenters who frequently like to refer to themselves as "skeptics" fail to catch the scent of pandering that accompanies version 2 of the story. However, with the knowledge that the self-described skeptics are really partisan hacks, the reaction to this makes perfect sense.
If McCain used the story for political expediency, wouldn't he have done so in more than one city? (New York, Dallas, Kansas City, etc.)
I don't think McCain is stupid. Changing the story for each city, as a planned strategy, would be idiotic. I suspect McCain just made an error in judgment in changing the details of the story for the Pittsburgh audience. He was talking about the Steeler teams of the mid 70s and probably thought it would be clever to tie that in with his personal experience. If so, it certainly wouldn't make him the first politician to be creative with his personal stories. Is it the position of rightwingers that McCain has never lied? Or that he's never lied in his political career? I'm curious... why such an irrational defense of what seems (to me at least) to be a fairly trivial lie?
Cyrus!
Slow down buddy. Why the aggravation?
You are an excellent (IMHO), cogent commenter on Althouse and have been for quite some time.
General charges are flying about the general motivations of why this silly thing is really an issue. No one seriously believes that you are stupid or so far extreme politically that you can't see straight.
There are - and you know it - plenty of people on the left that are more than happy to distract from the issues with this Andrew Sullivan-ignited story. All the center to center-right commenters here are doing is trying to prevent another Dan-Rather-Mary-Mapes-AH-HA-Gotcha-But-not-Really type thing from starting out again.
It won't distract from Obama's refusal to release the Ayer's records, though.
I wasn't aware that Obama has control of the records to which you refer. What's your evidence for this claim, please?
"I suspect McCain just made an error in judgment in changing the details..."
Meanwhile, it's day 3 of the Obama Refusal to Release the Annenberg Records.
And yes, he could compel their release, if he demanded it.
But he won't. Why not?
What exactly is he hiding?
And it's day 1.5 of the McCain POW Football Story. Clearly an important issue, the key (the KEY!!11!) to the election no doubt.
Come clean McCain, was it the Steelers or the Packers?!?!
The shame he must feel.
"What's your evidence for this claim, please?"
Classic Cyrus.
Fookin' hilarious.
Wasting time on such a trivial story is not a sign of a smart mind.
Apparently my point wasn't clear. There's good reason to doubt McCain's credibility in some of his POW stories. While I'm willing to accept the stories for which he's on record, the dramatic or politically convenient "new" stories leave me skeptical.
That said, I certainly don't expect Democrats to do something as dumb as to question McCain's POW accounts. However, Democrats have a strong history of letting Republicans define these races and coming from ahead to lose elections, so who knows what direction Democratic incompetence will take.
Pogo wrote:
[nothing of substance]
Classic Pogo! Why are you afraid to answer the question Pogo? Is it because answering the question would prove you to be a fool?
"Why are you afraid to answer the question..."
No, really, Cyrus. Go on about the football roster.
Fascinating.
Too bad Obama doesn't have the balls to release the Annenberg documents. Looks like Jesse Jackson really did steal them.
You gotta wonder though, if he's not man enough to compel the release of the documents, how could he be man enough to be President?
I think Pogo means Obama is to break into a university to seize some documents that some right wing blogs want to see.
Geez, garage, I suppose so, but that sounds kinda racist to me.
You'd think a guy who is going to be President might be able to, you know, make a few calls and, well, make shit happen.
I guess not.
Well, this foreshadows the Obama Presidency: The Castration Years.
Once upon a time, Hoosier occasionally made some intelligent observations in his posts. That was a very long time ago, however.
Thanks Cyrus. I would also say that there was a time when you presented worthwhile comments and didn't come off as Roger aptly put phrased, an insufferable ass.
Hoosier, I guess you don't read as well as you used to.
Actually Cyrus I read quite well thank you very much. Actually I think you may need a refresher in reading comprehension or perhaps are confused because I simply stated that’ anyone who wants to challenge a guy…”. I didn’t name you personally, merely posted an alternative position in the same format you did.
Although implausible, I accept the possibility that McCain suffered from a "memory lapse" (as his campaign claims) in his appearance in Pittsburgh.
Although you do strongly suggest the latter position that he simply lied his ass off rather than had a memory lapse. In fact, you said specifically that anyone who buys into the theory is either gullible or a partisan hack. So for 'accepting the possibility of a memory lapse' you certainly are in danger of being gullible or a hack, by your own definition that is.
If indeed he suffered a "memory lapse," it's a cause for concern.
Oh yes, much concern. An investigation should be launched immediately. Because it’s not like he ‘misspoke’ about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia or not being able to recall if he was ever in his pastor’s racist church during a Goddam America sermon.
Since this claimed "memory lapse" by coincidence looks an awful lot like pandering, it's reasonable to speculate about the possibility that McCain was fibbing. ..... I know this opinion is harsh--it makes McCain sound like a politician!
Well I’d be shocked to find anyone on here who thinks McCain is something other than a politician.
Now, because there are a few slow commenters here, I'll repeat that I'm not challenging McCain's original version of the story. I'm simply noting the inconsistency in his two versions (acknowledged by the McCain campaign itself!) and speculating about the reason for the appearance of a second version of the story.
Classic Cyrus. See I’m not challenging McCain’s story, merely pointing out the inconsistencies in how he told it and of course strongly suggesting that he lied for political purposes. You can look at your 12:23 comment for details.
It's clear that the notion that a non-Democratic politician might have told a lie is upsetting to some Althouse commenters and, in reponse, they'll try to make the issue about something else that they feel they can defend (e.g., McCain was a POW and he was tortured!).
I think you’re reaching here Cyrus. I doubt any of the regular conservative commentors on Althouse have any allusions that non-Democratic politicians don’t lie. I do think however, that they’re more willing to cut a former POW some slack over whether or not he pandered to his audience about giving his captors their home team’s defensive linemen names during interrogation.
I'm sorry if I've offended any of these tender commenters with my speculation. However, since you are well-practiced at ignoring inconvenient facts,
What facts are those Cyrus? I thought you were merely speculating on possible reasons for the Packers vs Steelers interrogation scandal. Speculating of course not actually challenging, just to keep it straight.
I think Pogo means Obama is to break into a university to seize some documents that some right wing blogs want to see.
Hopefully he won't get take tips in stealing documents from Sandy Berger.
The story is first in print by MCCAIN in Faith of my Fathers, John McCain's 1999 book.
The story is about Solzhenitsyn and
easy to find in print after @ 1997.
It clearly does not matter if the story was written by Solzhenitsyn or about
Solzhenitsyn or made up about him.
Since Sat. nobody has been able to find the MCCAIN story prior to the Gulag story
even in lot's of context where it would have been logical to find such a story.
What does this tell us about his desperation and ambition driving his actions?
It does not really say anything about his POW experience (which still doesn't prepare someone to be POTUS).
And why does he keep saying he plans to consult with Democratic Rep. John Lewis when he never talks to him?
Why does he say he is for alternative energy sources but won't vote for the bill?
He has a big bag of lies and carefully chooses the best one for any occasion.
i didn't read all 300 comments, but where is your mythical leftist colossus attacking mccain on this point? the NRO, and mccain, of course love to play the victim here to big bad obama, but where are these attacks actually happening?
Here, in his own words, is a fellow classmate of John McSame's:
"John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States."
More at the link. He deserves to be heard.
MCG says:
"Did you ever read even one objective writer on the subject? "
What? Like Byron York? Hardly non-partisan. Andrew Sullivan? He's picked a candidate.
See, you went personal instead of addressing substance. A real sign of weakness. Come on, you can do better.
Obama is done. Past his sell by date.
McCain is gonna beat him like a drum.
The only thing that keeps the democrats as a viable national party is the amazing ineptitude and timidity of the national republicans.
If McCain keeps his ego slightly in check and picks a vp candidate that is a believable future president and one who does not irritate the conservatives he is in.
The following is not stated as an Obama supporter:
John McCain's unquestionable suffering as a POW inspires such hushed awe and respect, most particularly in people who have not experienced anything remotely like that and know it (hawkchickens?), that he will get a free pass if he chooses to exploit and massage and market his suffering to get into the White House.
The psychology of survivors (I live with one) can include a sense of entitlement to recompense. Also, people who have felt very powerless may later use the fact of their suffering to gain power, to compensate for that very experience of powerlessness and to redeem the shame. When you are tortured you feel worthless. That the world will later regard the fact of your torture as a badge of worth can be irresistibly, almost addictively redemptive -- an experience you need to repeat and repeat because something deep down will never quite believe it.
My husband has also lied in small ways about his prisoner experience to make himself sound more pathetic and sympathetic.
In a book he wrote about it, he originally said he was arrested by the Red Army at age 15. In fact, he was almost 17.
I don't think any of this is unusual. Survivors are not saints. They're human beings trying to make out in the world like everybody else, and like everybody else, they use what they have. They discover that their suffering, so far from being a mortifying secret, can be a ticket to respect and success. See my previous comment.
Hoosier wrote:
Actually Cyrus I read quite well thank you very much.
Unfortunately, the evidence here suggests otherwise.
...I simply stated that’ anyone who wants to challenge a guy…”. I didn’t name you personally, merely posted an alternative position in the same format you did.
Indeed. The problem is that your statement isn't consistent with the facts and isn't logical. You seem to forget, conveniently, that the McCain campaign acknowledged the "error." Therefore, the rightwing strategy of pretending that McCain might have also named Pittsburgh players contradicts the McCain campaign position. The relevant question, then, is whether the error was a "memory lapse" or a "fib." It's a shame that you can't understand this not particularly subtle distinction.
Although you do strongly suggest the latter position that he simply lied his ass off rather than had a memory lapse. In fact, you said specifically that anyone who buys into the theory is either gullible or a partisan hack. So for 'accepting the possibility of a memory lapse' you certainly are in danger of being gullible or a hack, by your own definition that is.
Again, this shows poor reading skills and faulty reasoning on your part. Although I accept the possibility that McCain had a convenient "memory lapse" that makes an otherwise innocent error look suspiciously like fibbing and pandering, I don't buy into this theory. My argument (again, not particularly subtle) is that a critical thinker would naturally question the reason for McCain's second version of the story. Those who simply accept the official McCain campaign excuse of a "memory lapse" are either gullible or partisan hacks. Do you get it now? The fact that I find that the "memory lapse" theory is possible but highly implausible is not at all similar to the notion that I'm "buying into" that theory.
Because it’s not like he ‘misspoke’ about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia or not being able to recall if he was ever in his pastor’s racist church during a Goddam America sermon.
An interesting comparison, Hoosier. Given the amount of time and energy the rightwingers here and elsewhere have spent on the Clinton Bosnia sniper fire story and on the Obama church stories, you seem terribly reluctant to even consider inconsistencies in the questionably truthful statements that your candidate has made. This strikes me as blind partisanship.
Oh yes, much concern. An investigation should be launched immediately.
Again, this is a rather silly response. Given recent past history concerning the mental agility of a relatively old president, I would hope that people are monitorinig McCain for signs of reduced mental acuity. The point here is not that the "memory lapse" is serious in the details but in the occurrence itself.
Classic Cyrus. See I’m not challenging McCain’s story...
Well, Hoosier, you didn't read carefully, again. I wrote that "I'm not challenging McCain's ORIGINAL VERSION of the story..." I AM challenging his new version of the story, as it is inconsistent with version 1.0. Do you understand the difference now? If you rightwingers would take the time to read accurately, you wouldn't waste my time and yours with these silly counterarguments based on false premises.
I do think however, that they’re more willing to cut a former POW some slack over whether or not he pandered to his audience about giving his captors their home team’s defensive linemen names during interrogation.
I'm sure this is correct, but I believe it's based less on the fact that McCain was a POW and more on the fact that McCain is their candidate.
Now, Hoosier, if you want to cut McCain slack over his fibs, that's your prerogative, but that's a different matter than pretending that he doesn't fib. As I wrote earlier, I'm not surprised when politicians lie. I am surprised, however, when otherwise sensible people refuse to acknowledge the lies of politicians simply because of partisanship.
In any case, I'm unwilling to give any candidate a free pass to fib about his past. Perhaps this is why I reliably find presidential candidates so unappealing. Even more unappealing, though, are the intellectually dishonest arguments of the hacks who willingly suspend critical thinking in the service of partisanship.
Unfortunately, the evidence here suggests otherwise.
Try again Cyrus. You certainly aren’t as smart as you think you are.
Indeed. The problem is that your statement isn't consistent with the facts and isn't logical.
And again you fail to comprehend or are simply confused. For someone who likes to criticize others for poor reading skills, yours leave much to be desired. My statement merely was an observation that this ‘issue’ was a poor one for anti-McCain types to cling to.
You seem to forget, conveniently, that the McCain campaign acknowledged the "error." Therefore, the rightwing strategy of pretending that McCain might have also named Pittsburgh players contradicts the McCain campaign position. The relevant question, then, is whether the error was a "memory lapse" or a "fib." It's a shame that you can't understand this not particularly subtle distinction.
And you seem to assume that I care one way or another. I’m perfectly willing to accept the memory lapse or lie because all politicians do it. All I am saying is that trying to make political hay out of this particular lapse or ‘lie’ is pretty lame.
Although you do strongly suggest the latter position that he simply lied his ass off rather than had a memory lapse. In fact, you said specifically that anyone who buys into the theory is either gullible or a partisan hack. So for 'accepting the possibility of a memory lapse' you certainly are in danger of being gullible or a hack, by your own definition that is.
Again, this shows poor reading skills and faulty reasoning on your part. Although I accept the possibility that McCain had a convenient "memory lapse" that makes an otherwise innocent error look suspiciously like fibbing and pandering, I don't buy into this theory.
Uh try again Cyrus.
My argument (again, not particularly subtle) is that a critical thinker would naturally question the reason for McCain's second version of the story. Those who simply accept the official McCain campaign excuse of a "memory lapse" are either gullible or partisan hacks. Do you get it now? The fact that I find that the "memory lapse" theory is possible but highly implausible is not at all similar to the notion that I'm "buying into" that theory.
Because it’s not like he ‘misspoke’ about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia or not being able to recall if he was ever in his pastor’s racist church during a Goddam America sermon.
An interesting comparison, Hoosier. Given the amount of time and energy the rightwingers here and elsewhere have spent on the Clinton Bosnia sniper fire story and on the Obama church stories, you seem terribly reluctant to even consider inconsistencies in the questionably truthful statements that your candidate has made. This strikes me as blind partisanship.
Actually my candidate was out of the running a long time ago but I digress. I guess the differences with Hillary is that the sniper incident never took place. Never and verifiably so. That wasn’t a lapse or misspeak, it was an outright piece of bullshit. I don’t question McCain’s inconsistencies in this issue because in the grand scheme of lies they tell, it’s insignificant.
Again, this is a rather silly response. Given recent past history concerning the mental agility of a relatively old president, I would hope that people are monitorinig McCain for signs of reduced mental acuity. The point here is not that the "memory lapse" is serious in the details but in the occurrence itself.
Silly to you because evidently a photographic memory seems to be your criteria for presidential success. Considering Obama and Hillary were caught in numerous lies at their relative young age, I would say the grounds of concern would be even greater.
Well, Hoosier, you didn't read carefully, again. I wrote that "I'm not challenging McCain's ORIGINAL VERSION of the story..." I AM challenging his new version of the story, as it is inconsistent with version 1.0. Do you understand the difference now? If you rightwingers would take the time to read accurately, you wouldn't waste my time and yours with these silly counterarguments based on false premises.
Oh yes I see now. It’s not his original story that I think he lied over, it’s the different version. Cyrus, if you actually used those critical thinking skills you seem so proud of I would think his lie would cast doubt on the credibility of his whole story.
Now, Hoosier, if you want to cut McCain slack over his fibs, that's your prerogative, but that's a different matter than pretending that he doesn't fib.
I never said he didn’t lie. Again, you’re confused or your reading skills are poorer than you think mine are.
In any case, I'm unwilling to give any candidate a free pass to fib about his past.
Well I would certainly be delighted to read any comments you had posted here about the lies or ‘memory’ lapses of say, Gore, Kerry, Hillary or Obama. Because that would certainly give your statement above some credibility as you only seem to show up when a Republican is under scrutiny.
Day 4 of the No-Balls Obama refusal to release the Annenberg records.
Before us is the man who would be President, too weak to reveal his past. He remains a cipher, untested, unknown, whose defenders like Cyrus are reduced to arguing about whether the other guy drew a cross in the dirt and listed the roster for a football team for political gain.
"Oh my!" John, say it isn't so.
Meanwhile, Obama hides his ties to unrepentant 1970s terrorists and skeezy pols like Rezko.
I wonder which story will matter more to the undecideds.
C'mon Cyrus, Alpha, garage, you've beaten this stupid tale until it's a pile of mush. Stick a fork in it.
Nah. Serve it as leftovers. Team Obama is nosediving in the polls. This is just the issue to get Americans back in his camp.
Maybe you guys could attack his adopted child too. Thats a winner.
Cyrus: google black Phds in physics--shouldnt be too hard for you. last year for example 10 were awarded. Look up black educator. You my friend are simply full of shit. Revenant in his or her inimitable fashion nailed your egregious style of argumentation last year: highly passive aggressive, and full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. You may not find my posts interesting--which bothers me not in the least. You are nothing but a troll.
and unless I miss my guess you will be back and respond to Hoosier's take down and mine because you seem to always have to get the last word in. go for it
Aw, c'mon Roger, I was hoping Cyrus would try to jujutsu my question by asking for 'evidence' or by asking me to 'reread' or somesuch nonsense. Avoidance and insults are his signature!
Pogo--I have concluded that you are a pathologist--is that correct?
my dad was a pediatrician and my brother is a GP..me I do epidemiology and specialize in disaster epi As far as cyrus goes he is a poseur--I only care about what my peer reviewers think about my work
Almost ...I'm a geriatrician.
Pathology is the next step (I keed, I keed).
Pogo--you are bad--considering the fastest growing demographic group is the 85 and up cohort, you are well positioned!
Cyrus: google black Phds in physics--shouldnt be too hard for you. last year for example 10 were awarded.
Roger J.,
I googled "black PhDs physics" as you suggested, followed the first link and indeed found that 10 PhDs were awarded to blacks in physics. Not last year, though, but in 2005. (You see, it helps with accuracy if you read carefully!) More importantly, this statistic refers to PhDs awarded in physics to blacks from universities in the United States. Contrary to your way of thinking, however, the United States is NOT the world; certainly far more than 10 PhDs were awarded to blacks in physics in 2005 if you include doctorates awarded by universities around the world. (Yes, it's true, other countries do have universities!)
I suppose I should also mention that you failed to provide a source for your previous claim (125 PhDs awarded to blacks in physics since 1985). I suspect that it is also incorrectly interpreted and/or misrepresented. However, since you clearly intend to cut-and-run from this exchange, I have no way to check. I truly hope that this is not representative of the quality of your research in general; it's extremely poor work.
Also, Roger J., your understanding and use of statistics seems to be terribly poor. In your first post, you imply that it's extremely unlikely that I could be black physicist with a PhD because of the small number of such recipients in the United States. This is the type of argument made by someone with no understanding of statistics. However, since you clearly don't understand that point, let me apply your "reasoning" to you and perhaps you will begin to get a clue.
Let's assume that you're living in the United States as a citizen. The likelihood that you live in TN, as you claim, is just about 2%, statistically. According to your "logic" then, it's unlikely that you live in TN.
However, let's proceed with the assumption that you live in TN. The likelihood then that your surname is Arango, as you claim, is less than 0.00007%. In other words, if we apply your "logic," there's a nearly infinitesimal likelihood that your surname is Arango. Using your "logic" then, you are almost certainly lying about who you are. (I'll leave the solution to this conundrum to you as an exercise.)
Roger J., let me suggest again that you limit yourself to discussing topics relating to Althouse's blog entries rather than obsessing about my credentials. Try to make relevant posts. If you find that you can't shake your obsession with me, start your own blog with the objective of gathering evidence to determine my secret identity. But while I'm commenting at Althouse, please remember that it's her blog and that she (not you) is responsible for who comments here. Unless she's appointed you to be the official Althouse bouncer, you should stop trying to toss other commenters. (And in that regard, your apology should be to her, not me.)
Cheers!
Cyrus,
That was your worst post ever.
And that's saying something.
Especially this bit of classic Cyrus bullshittery: "...certainly far more than 10 PhDs were awarded to blacks in physics in 2005 if you include doctorates awarded by universities around the world."
Fookin' hilarious. No point arguing that no one else but Cyrus would read in the world into Roger's statements. No, just Cyrus, who is never wrong even when he is flat wrong. Just tweak the definition a bit and he might be almost maybe partially right, if you squint a bit. But not wrong.
And then to say "Try to make relevant posts." followed quickly by declaring "you should stop trying to toss other commenters", well, I bow to your superior chutzpah.
You're the nes plus ultra of superfluous commenters.
Hoosier wrote:
Try again Cyrus. You certainly aren’t as smart as you think you are.
To be fair, Hoosier, I'm not claiming to be smart, just smarter than you. That's really not much of a boast. :)
My statement merely was an observation that this ‘issue’ was a poor one for anti-McCain types to cling to.
Incorrect. That may have been what you intended to say, but it's not what you wrote. The key phrase is this: "...as to whether or not he really meant the Packer's line up versus the Steelers lineup..." As I point out, that issue is not in dispute--the McCain campaign has acknowledged the error as a "memory lapse." That means that McCain admits that he did not name the "Steel Curtain" to his interrogators. As I wrote previously, your statement is not consistent with the facts. And for the record, no one is "clinging" to this incident. I've merely cited the incident as evidence that McCain has previously embellished tales of his POW experiences. That is why it's relevant to the blog topic. Get it?
Also, for the record, I'm not suggesting that Democrats use this or anything else relating to McCain's POW experiences for political purposes. Practically speaking, any strategy of that sort will be a big loser, IMO.
All I am saying is that trying to make political hay out of this particular lapse or ‘lie’ is pretty lame.
Well, that's not all you've been saying, but I agree with this point, except I'd say that such a strategy would be counterproductive rather than lame.
I don’t question McCain’s inconsistencies in this issue because in the grand scheme of lies they tell, it’s insignificant.
To be honest, most of the fibs these candidates tell are about things that are relatively insignificant. For example, does it matter one way or another if there was sniper fire in Bosnia during Clinton's visit? It certainly doesn't matter to me.
Silly to you because evidently a photographic memory seems to be your criteria for presidential success.
You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. I was saying the opposite--that is, a photographic memory is not essential, but a mind that shows signs of atypical memory loss is worrisome. For example, I wouldn't be concerned if McCain forgot the names of the "Steel Curtain" but I'd be worried if he forgot the name of his daughter. In this case, he forgot a detail relating to a very intense, and presumably memorable episode in his life. I don't know where this ranks in terms of signs of memory loss, but it is somewhat reminiscent of a few of Reagan's stories in which he occasionally confused incidents in his life with scenes from his movies.
... if you actually used those critical thinking skills you seem so proud of I would think his lie would cast doubt on the credibility of his whole story.
You're not applying critical thinking skills here, Hoosier. The original version of the story has been told several times over the course of many years. He's been consistent in the details. He wrote about it before there was any clear political advantage in shaping the details of the story. And although unverifiable, it was a consistent story that fit with the McCain POW timeline (e.g., the Packers were a dominant football team prior to McCain's time as a POW).
The fact that McCain suddenly changed the details of this story to suit a particular audience makes me skeptical about his credibility in sharing new, politically expedient information about his POW experience.
Because that would certainly give your statement above some credibility as you only seem to show up when a Republican is under scrutiny.
To be fair, Hoosier, I only show up here about once a month. When I come here, I consistently take a position that challenges the arguments put forth by the usual suspects at Althouse. When I go to other blogs I do the same--I generally challenge the consensus opinion. That's one of the reasons that I'm generally unwelcome as a commenter at both rightwing and leftwing blogs. (I'm sure there are other reasons--e.g., I'm an insufferable ass--although I've also noticed that blog commenters, here and elsewhere, are typically quick to identify those in disagreement with the consensus as "trolls" and use whatever means available to drive out the voices.)
In any case, Hoosier, in spite of the fact that you're wrong and I'm right, you've pretty reliably been a decent person here. In my book, that counts for a lot more than being right.
Pogo blathered:
No point arguing that no one else but Cyrus would read in the world into Roger's statements. No, just Cyrus, who is never wrong even when he is flat wrong.
The reason that "the world" is relevant, dear slow Pogo, is that I went to graduate school overseas. (Overseas refers to outside the United States, Pogo.)
Assuming Roger J. was trying to be relevant in citing statistics, he would need to include doctorates awarded by universities throughout the world. I suspect even you can grasp this, Pogo, if you try. However, I doubt you'll try--you seem quite happy to play the buffoon, and you do it quite well too. A result of constant practice, presumably.
Cheers!
Assuming...
Your problem, in a word.
"Overseas refers to...
I suspect even you can grasp this...
However, I doubt you'll try...
you seem quite happy to play the buffoon...
and you do it quite well too...
A result of constant practice, presumably..."
An entire paragraph of witless rejoinders, by the master hisself.
McCain uses POW stories to pander to different audiences.
McCain is known for straight-talk. He isn't talking straight. Why isn't this a problem?
They discover that their suffering, so far from being a mortifying secret, can be a ticket to respect and success.
But at the same time McCain is lying to gain respect, he is disrespecting his opponent, who is honest and respectful. That despicable behavior is worthy of criticism.
Pogo wrote:
[nothing of substance, as usual]
Stupidity... your problem in a word.
My prediction that Roger J. would cut-and-run sure proved accurate.
I think that either I, or many others, missed the point to the cross story. I read it originally as a comment on the humanity of some of the guards, and nothing really positive or negative about John McCain. To some extent, John McCain was just the witness to this heroism, and not the hero himself.
And that is part of why this is so different from the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry. There, Kerry was putting himself up for being a hero. And, indeed, that was the general tenor of his autobiography and campaign - how heroic he was.
But when I read that original article written by McCain shortly after his return, I was struck with how often he looked to the heroism of others, while dispassionately reciting his own actions, almost suggesting that they were not at the same level in terms of heroism. In short, he sounded to me more humble than anything back then.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा