Atlantis Online

Past Events => Campaign 2008 => Topic started by: Bianca on July 03, 2008, 07:54:29 am

Post by: Bianca on July 03, 2008, 07:54:29 am

                                                       THE REAL TOP GUN

July 1st,
2008 J Cifre, J.D.

This week has been very good for John Sidney McCain III. He has been going up in the polls in both Georgia and Massachusetts, and has had the Obama campaign earnestly (albeit foolishly) attacking his military record. This has given McCain a great opportunity to highlight his past service without appearing presumptuous or politically motivated. Every time an Obama surrogate claims that McCain is not fit to be president because he was tortured by the VietCong, or that being held captive for 5 years in isolation is not “reflective of his character”, they only reinforce these stories in McCain’s resume and simultaneously highlight the lack of service on their candidate’s resume. What has Obama EVER done that in any way entails a sacrifice for this Nation and it’s citizens?

At issue here is the subject of personal sacrifice in the face of difficult odds. What is being questioned by Obama’s surrogates is the CONCEPT of personal sacrifice for the sake of others and the value of SERVICE for our fellow ‘man’. All of this basically points to the fact that it is quite difficult to remember any recent politician who can honestly proclaim to have lived through (and have willfully accepted) the PERSONAL pain and suffering that John McCain endured for this Country. McCain’s military record and bonafide status as a war hero is UNIMPEACHABLE and UNQUESTIONABLE, a fact that almost every Democrat has been all too willing to admit. So why is Obama PURPOSELY attacking McCain’s war record anyway?

It is quite obvious that the Obama campaign clearly understand that their candidate’s character, even without putting it in contrast with anyone else’, is quite faulty and leaves MUCH to be desired. And, when pitted against a war hero in the likes of John S. McCain, his puny record seems almost disrespectful to the office he seeks. They all understand that if Obama is to survive this election, it is then crucial to diminish and put into question McCain’s record and ‘war hero’ status. This explains why the Obama camp has had multiple surrogates engage in this strategy for the last couple of days. Let’s look at a few of Obama’s own surrogates, and read how they have started to frame John McCain’s service:

Post by: Bianca on July 03, 2008, 07:57:20 am

“While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser argued Monday that the former POW’s isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator’s capacity as a war-time leader.” (Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter, “Dem Guru: McCain Limited By POW Years,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog,, 6/30/08)

Beers: “Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him. … I think that the notion that the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost that you described than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war.” (Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter, “Dem Guru: McCain Limited By POW Years,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog,, 6/30/08)

Beers: “So I think … to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.” (Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter, “Dem Guru: McCain Limited By POW Years,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog,, 6/30/08)

“The Beers remarks, which were made at the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington, D.C….” (Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter, “Dem Guru: McCain Limited By POW Years,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog,, 6/30/08)

** “CAPAF, which is the political arm of a liberal think tank headed by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, has been taking the lead for Democrats on dissecting McCain’s policy proposals. CAPAF’s Monday series of four policy panels on the economy, health care, foreign policy, and energy was dubbed ‘McCain University.’” (Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter, “Dem Guru: McCain Limited By POW Years,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog,, 6/30/08) **

Gen. Clark: “But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded? It wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, ‘I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly?’ He hasn’t made those points Bob.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/29/08)

CBS’ Bob Schieffer: “Well, General, could I just interrupt you. I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.” Gen. Clark: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/29/08)

Sen. Rockefeller: “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.” (Paul J. Nyden, “Jay Defends Endorsement Of Sen. Obama,” The Charleston Gazette, 4/8/08)

“Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, ‘and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,’ Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday. ‘I think he’s trapped in that,’ Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. ‘Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.’” (Jane Norman, “Harkin: McCain Too ‘Military,’” The Des Moines Register, 5/17/08)

Post by: Bianca on July 03, 2008, 08:00:02 am

As you can see, the Obama campaign has been recently testing the waters to see if this subject is ‘damaging’ or ‘out of bounds’ for the American public, before engaging in it too deeply towards November. This allows their camp to respond rapidly if there is outrage or maintain the pressure if people don’t care. Up until now, many people have thankfully responded negatively, which explains why he felt the need to “reject” Clark’s statements in his recent “patriotism speech”.

What is ironic about this whole dynamic is that the reason people are not responding to his attacks in the same way that many Americans did when Republicans attacked Kerry on “similar grounds”, is because Obama HAS NEVER even served a day in the military, nor has he ever been NEAR combat (Harvard is a pretty relaxing place!). This fact alone  (his lack of service) makes him look like a pompous and arrogant politician when he is all too willing to attack a man like John McCain, who was tortured for the simple crime of being an American soldier.

For the sake of fairness, let’s make these Liberal talking points easier to understand for the American people and clearly digest them for those of you who may still be “confused”. Their argument is, that a man who decides to serve his Nation by joining the military, who was then shot down, captured, and tortured physically and psychologically because of his refusal to go home and leave his fellow soldiers behind, is now being branded as someone who does not cross the “Liberal threshold” to become Commander in Chief. Instead, we are told, being of the ‘correct historic ethnicity’, serving a few years in the Senate, and openly befriending terrorists and racist, is the perfect qualification to lead the free world and solve our biggest problems.

But the sleaze and fear of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party does not end at alluding to McCain’s ‘war hero’ liability. There have been rumors around the internet that the Democrats are even planing their own “swift boating” campaign against McCain, on the particular issue of being supposedly “broken” by the VietCong under torture (I have already seen their very silly and cheap production videos). Apparently, these potential 527’s think that by highlighting the idea that McCain MIGHT have given the VietCong any information during their 5 year torture marathon of him, it somehow proves that McCain is in fact ‘less of a hero’ than most people think. This sort of childish and immature mentality clearly explains why Liberals have always been mocked for their lack of Military understanding and cowardly perspectives. Would George Soros, or any of these other arm-chair Socialists, ever survive a day of VietCong “treatment” without ’spilling their guts’ about their own family members and personal associates? The stupidity of these strategies are somewhat mind-boggling but nonetheless repulsive.

But, even if this LIE about John McCain were true and widely disseminated (i.e. that he caved in after prolonged torture), it does not diminish his service at all and will instead end up highlighting it. For most Americans, the idea of “giving in” a few times in 5 years, after getting your arms pulled out of socket hundreds of times, getting burned with cigarettes on your genitals on a daily basis, and getting constantly drowned in buckets of soiled water, is quite understandable (to say the least!).

It is for these, and many other indirect reasons, that these Obama blunders have thus been very helpful to McCain, since he has been able to simply point out the ludicrousness of these surrogate’s statements, while remaining ‘above the fray’. After all, these are DEMOCRATS insulting REPUBLICANS on the issue of Military service and patriotism!

Of course, this is not to say that Republicans have a monopoly on these issues, they clearly do not, but it is well known that the Democratic Party has historically shot themselves on the foot on these particular core American values. This year, they are already reinforcing these ‘cliches’ by nominating a man like Barack Hussein Obama, who will clearly keep said perspective attached to the Democratic Party for many years to come, and who has less character in his entire body than Mr. McCain’s middle finger.

All of this nonsense reminds me of an expression that my grandmother used to say about similar circumstances (and I am translating): “It is like watching ducks shooting at the rifles!”

©2008 J.Cifre, J.D., of

Post by: Garrell Hughes on July 03, 2008, 09:29:14 am
The Obama campaign hasn't been attacking McCain's service record, they have simply been saying that being a POW and a former fighter pilot do not qualify you to be Commander-in-Chief. They don't, if they did, George McGovern (one hell of a fighter pilot during WWII) would have been President in 72.

As for McCain moving up in the polls in Georgia and Massachusetts, I would like to see some numbers on that.  Last I saw Obama was way ahead in Massachucetts (traditional Democratic country) and in Georgia (traditional Republican country), McCain was only up by one point.

One thing is clear: the McCain people are so desperate they will seize on anything at all and try to shape it into an "attack" on his military record. 

Post by: Garrell Hughes on July 03, 2008, 09:31:29 am
Apparently, the only things that McCain wants said about his military record are nice things (even though right wingers had no problem trashing Kerry and Gore's service records).

You do knowhe made propaganda messages for the North Vietnamesse, right?

Post by: Bianca on July 03, 2008, 09:38:17 am

                                       Georgia: McCain Still Enjoys Double Digit Lead
Mon Jun 30, 2008
John McCain continues to hold a substantial lead over Barack Obama in Georgia. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows the presumptive Republican nominee attracting 53% of the vote while his Democratic rival earns support from 43%. One percent (1%) of voters would opt for former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr who is running as the Libertarian candidate for President. Three percent (3%) of voters are undecided.
A month ago, McCain enjoyed a similar ten-point lead, 51% to 41%. Rasmussen Reports has conducted four polls in the Peachtree State this year and McCain has led by double digits in all four. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss appears to be in good shape for his re-election bid.

McCain is viewed favorably by 60% of Georgia voters, Obama by 47%.

The current survey found that up to 6% of Georgia voters might consider voting for Barr. Most of these are currently McCain voters. If all 6% voted for Barr, the race in Georgia might be competitive. However, unless McCain is clearly headed for defeat nationally, it is unlikely that Barr will make enough of an impact to threaten the Republican winning streak in the state.

George W. Bush won the Georgia twice by double digits. Bill Clinton narrowly carried the state in 1992 but lost it to Bob Dole in 1996. Rasmussen Markets data shows that McCain is currently given a 79.0 % chance of winning Georgia's fifteen Electoral College votes this fall. At the time this poll was released, Georgia was rated as "Likely Republican" in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Georgia voters say it's more important to get the troops home from Iraq than it is to win the war. Forty-five percent (45%) hold the opposite view and say victory is more important. Those figures are little changed from a month ago.

Sixty-four percent (64%) say that offshore oil wells should be allowed while 25% of Georgia voters disagree. Those figures are similar to the national average.

George W. Bush won 58% of the Georgia vote in Election 2004 but today just 40% say he is doing a good or an excellent job as President.

This survey was conducted in partnership with Fox Television Stations Inc.

This telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on June 26, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Post by: Kristina on July 03, 2008, 11:10:13 am
I think the point that Wes Clark was trying to make was that McCain had no executive experience in the military - the squad he commanded was in peacetime.

I agree that people should not get in the habit of critiquing his military record, though. Then, they shouldn't have done it to Kerry in 2004, either. All military service should be treated admirably. We should be grateful to anyone that has shed blood for our country, irregardless of their party.

Post by: Monique Faulkner on July 03, 2008, 03:25:47 pm
McCain Flips At Legit Question
Posted July 3, 2008 | 11:28 AM (EST)

I've been running for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in 2008, we've endorsed a number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for Congress. It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always -- always -- get the same first question:

What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress?

It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it. As veterans of the current conflicts, they have a unique perspective on the wars that should be part of the debate on the floor of Congress, and a vote that helps shapes our security policy.

Yesterday, John McCain was asked basically the same question by a brave reporter at ABC News. The reporter, not falling for the hysterics and mock-outrage of the McCain camp over General Wesley Clark's comments simply asked what John McCain's experiences in Vietnam did to prepare him to lead the largest military on the face of the earth.

McCain's response?

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.
Uh uh. That's not good enough. You would assume that given all the whining over General Clark's legitimate point, that John McCain had some obvious answer to the question. Instead, he refused to answer the question, and let Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham come to his defense, babbling to the reporter about character, but not a word about qualifications.

The fact of the matter is that General Clark was absolutely right. McCain's service, while heroic and honorable, is not very relevant when it comes to preparing him to be the military's ultimate commander. His experience didn't involve executive decision making in the military, or global strategy. Very few candidates for the presidency have had the experience in life that prepares them for that role. In fact, McCain said it himself in 2003, that some of our best Commanders in Chief had no military experience at all.

That's why the McCain campaign went into all-out outrage mode over General Clark's comments. It wasn't about being offended. It wasn't even about General Clark. It was about lashing out so strongly that the media would cower in fear, and not even think about putting a question like this to McCain -- a question to which he has no answer, and is afraid of being exposed on that point. And, for most of the week, that strategy was successful, as the press wimped out, and repeated the McCain talking points.

The reporter from ABC News didn't fall for it, and did his job. But he didn't get an answer. Maybe now, reporters will stuff their guts back in their bodies and keep asking McCain this legit question -- a question I get a version of all the time from the same reporters.

It's a legit question, and it's a question for which the American people deserve an answer.

Post by: Volitzer on July 03, 2008, 04:19:44 pm
Baldwin has lead thousands with his ministry in spirituality in Pensacola Florida.

How's that for leadership experience.

Obama and McCain are Bilderberg puppets.