Sliming him as a baby killer
Um...if that's the position Obama's camp's taking on McCain's service record, well...man, are they stepping in it there.
Given Obama's unfettered love of all things abortion, that's a pretty low (and risky) accusation.
No, that is not Obama's position. It is not even Wesley Clark's position. He was disrespectful in some of his remarks but he was just questioning how much of McCain's experience would be directly useful to him as president. Same question others have asked about Obama's experience as a community organizer. The bottmom line is neither has been president before so both will draw on experience they garnered doing something else.
"he could start separating the goats who indulge in this filth."
Now that's pure comedy gold, Mark. Why on earth should the Obamessiah (PBUH) do such a thing? It all works out beautifully for Him Whose Middle Name Nust Not Be Mentioned:
1. campaign "ally" says stupid thing.
2. TSM and pundits erupt in a kerfuffle.
3. Obamessiah clucks his tongue and notes that (make your choice) "this is not the (name) I knew," "this sort of rhetoric has no place in my campaign," "no one should denigrate my opponent for political gain," ad nauseam.
4. Ally is thrown under bus.
5. Obamessiah rinses hands, walks away.
6. Smear lingers on.
7. Lather, rinse, repeat.
". . .about as low as you can get." Ha! You do have a gift for comedy, Mark. It's only going to get worse from here on in. But I don't care. Maybe this sort of fist in the face will finally convince McCain that the left despises him as much as Bush, no matter how much of an across-the-aisle consensus-making "maverick" he thinks he is. There are no friends on the left for a conservative - nor, as McCain is finding out, even for a RINO when one stands in the path of the Lightworker.
And frankly, this country deserves Obama.
Obama has already made clear that he does not share Clark's opinion: see here
One of the key quotes:
"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."
A very good statement by Obama, I thought.
I support McCain and view Obama as a terrible option. That said, I do not think that it is out of line to ask voters whether it is appropriate or desirable to place great positive weight on McCain's war record. Personally, I think his record in this respect, when properly investigated and understood, does reflect well upon McCain in ways that reveal his character; and that is very relevant for a presidential candidate. But others are entitled to view it differently.
I do that that (i) this must be done in a way that doesn't attack, criticize, or diminish his service, but simply admonishes voters to not give it undue weight and (ii) this is a very tricky undertaking that Obama's allies might be well-served to avoid as a practical matter.
CQ:
We're talking past each other. I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether McCain's service is particularly relevant to the demands of office. I think the same for Obama's extremely slight record of accomplishment.
What I object to is the attempt to say that McCain was a monster or a coward or a traitor. Despicable. I don't blame Obama for the actions of some Dem dirty tricksters. But I do hope the Messiah of the New Age will continue to be forceful in telling his partisans to drop such filth. They do him no favors.
What I object to is the attempt to say that McCain was a monster or a coward or a traitor. Despicable.
There is a lot of crap being thrown on both sides. Is there anyone connected with Obama saying this or is it just a few isolated people on line. Catholics often get accused of saying X, Y, and Z but when you look at all the most widely read Catholics they are often saying something else. It is unfair to characterize a group by some of its least respected members.
Mr. Shea, don't feel compelled to join the conservatives™ who "melt at the sight of a man in uniform," to borrow antiwar "Little American" Bill Kauffman's phrase.
We've dumbed down the term "hero" with everything else in this country. There was a time when the word meant something and was not thrown around easily.
There are legitimate questions about his cooperation with the Vietnamese, in giving much, much more than his name, rank and serial number. I'm not saying I wouldn't have caved in earlier, but I'm not running for president as a "war hero," for whom we Americans have fallen repeatedly in our short history.
Question to all of the Obama-messiah apologists: how can a devout Roman Catholic, in good conscious, vote for someone who has Marxist leanings (Marx hated religion), and is in favor of abortions in all forms? No matter what your political leanings, the abortion thing is the first and foremost thing a Catholic should consider.
The Western Confucian:
You wrote in part: "There are legitimate questions about his cooperation with the Vietnamese, in giving much, much more than his name, rank and serial number".
He acted correctly. I do not know what is taught now. But back in the Dark Ages the rule of thumb was to give up nothing but the "big three": name, rank and serial number for 24-hours. At the end of 24-hours the tactical situation had doubtlessly changed. Any information that the prisoner possessed was now outdated.
The prisoner then was supposed to say and do almost anything to stay alive except for one thing - do not betray a fellow prisoner. Appearing in a propaganda video was considered a great way to prove that you were alive and also to get better treatment (your captors had to fatten you up for the appearance).
The Senator may be a wimp when it comes to abortion but he was a tuff guy when it came to piloting a skyhawk during time of war and enduring prison.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I have met Bud Day. I have met Admiral Stockdale. I have met some other PWs.
I have my issues with some of their suitability for high elective office; when I met Admiral Stockdale he was not quite all there (197
. But anyone who wants to question their patriotism has the untrammeled right to kiss my royal Irish ass.
America targeted civilians in Vietnam, as in other conflicts. If McCain was bombing North Vietnam he was bombing cities and infrastructure (like the power plant you mentioned). I am surprised, Mr Shea, that you think this is off limits; generally you have upheld just war principles.
Of course, even if relevant it is hardly a wise tactic, as most Americans, even American Catholics, think it perfectly fine to slaughter innocents in war time: "War is war", and all that.
Mark, thanks for clarifying. I do agree with you that it's despicable. I think voters can legitimately ask whether a candidate's war experience (or any experience) is relevant to being president, but taking a guy's actions while he was subjected to torture and imprisonment and using them to make judgements about his patriotism/honestly/loyalty to the US, etc, is out of line. Honestly I tire of the "more-patriotic-than-thou" nonsense on both sides, and the rumblings from the fringe about McCain being a traitor are beyond ridiculous - as if any of these guys can say what THEY would do in such a situation. Me, I'm glad that I've never had to find out, and most likely never will. Same should go for these guys.
I'm glad Obama made the statement he did, and if the comments continue he should say more. But as another poster said, how likely is it that any of these people are actually connected to Obama? And is he expected to keep track of any and all nuts who support him, and issue statement after statement every time they pipe up? Given the number of voices (and nutty voices, at that) on the interwebs, it'd be a constant game of whack-a-mole; impossible to play and distracting from real issues. Clark is well known, in a position of leadership in the party, and gets much more media attention than your average leftwing nut online, so his statement warrants an answer from Obama, which he has done. I'm not sure every utterance from fringe-types warrants a response - by either candidate.
Apologies for the long-winded post, I hope it makes sense - my train of thought was interrupted about 20 times while writing this by my toddlers!
Daniel Nichols:
Do you know if Senator McCain actually killed any civilians while serving as a Naval Aviator?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Question to all of the Obama-messiah apologists: how can a devout Roman Catholic, in good conscious, vote for someone who has Marxist leanings (Marx hated religion), and is in favor of abortions in all forms? No matter what your political leanings, the abortion thing is the first and foremost thing a Catholic should consider.
Confederate Papist
Because despite the overwrought pro-life rhetoric, Obama does not INSIST on abortion. He will not Force women to get abortions. The chain of cause and effect between pro-life legislation and a reduction in the number of abortions is tenuous. You can not point to a single child who was unambiguously saved from abortion because of Bush's or McCain's pro-life stance.
Whereas Guantanamo is full of innocent people who were tortured soley because Bush insisted that they be. . .and McCain seems perfectly willing to continue these polivies, denouncing in the strongest possible terms the recent SCOTUS ruling that was an attempt to restore Habeus Corpus.
Abortion is a sin. But that fact does not obviously translate into "Vote republican". . .and I would have hoped that the catholics have started to realize this.
phosphorious - Obama-messiah said he would support his daughters having an abortion if they were to make a "mistake". The man would support aborting his own grandchild. You cannot explain this away and this is not a repub or dem issue as far as I am concerned. I was opposed to Guiliani too, for the same reason. At least Guiliani said it wasn't his personal choice, but he wouldn't stop anyone else. Still wrong.
*You can not point to a single child who was unambiguously saved from abortion because of Bush's or McCain's pro-life stance.*
That's because of the ACLU, NOW and other militant pro-aborts have the law on their side, thanks to Roe. The aristocrats in DC refuse to let the citizenry vote on abortion and let the states make the decision...I wonder why that is?
I guess the only plus side of this is that the pro-aborts will eventually abort themselves out of existence..
Confederate Papist,
Obama would abort his own grandchild. . .but he would NOT force me to abort mine. He is pro-CHOICE. This is a subtlety lost on the pro-life movement. They miss the fact that just because something is moral, doesn't mean the governmetn should force people to do it. Conservatives get this in the case of welfare: there is a clear gospel commandment to give to the poor, but welfare, that is government FORCED charity, is rejected by conservatives. Why? Do they ahte the poor?
No. . . .but goverment is an inefficient means to achieve the gospels goals.
If you think a government who forbids abortion is automatically closer to god, then do a wikipedia search for "Ceaucescu".
I can't believe I have to lecture a conservative about government not being the cure for everything.
Well, Jeff Davis didn't force anyone to buy slaves either, phosphorious. Your position requires everybody to agree that abortion is like deciding to go to the prom rather than deciding to hire a hit man.
That agreement doesn't exist.
phosphorious - I am a conservative, not a repub, that is true. I don't hate the poor, as my faith tells me I have a duty to help them. I agree with you about welfare, and I do suspect that most conservatives (not neo-con) don't hate the poor, but the entitlement mentality of those who expect welfare.
I am against abortion, but am not in favor of those who bomb clinics either. My last statement in my previous post said the electorate should decide whether Roe should stand or let the individual states decide and I think that is the way it should be. I am a states rights person.
Plus, I don't consider a new life a "mistake". As a father of a teenager, who, for now (and hopefully until she's married), is committed to chastity, if she were to fall, my position would be to guide her the way my Roman Catholic faith directs me, which is support and love, during the pregnancy, and make sure that child lives.
"You can not point to a single child who was unambiguously saved from abortion because of Bush's or McCain's pro-life stance."
Hmm. I wonder if you could find a child or two who was not slaughtered because Bush reversed the Clintonista executive order requiring the military hospitals to perform abortions.
Slavery and abortion. . .equally evil. But given that the fetus inhabits the mother, while the slave does not inhabit the slave owner, there are purely practical problems with FORCING a woman to give birth.
Purely practical. . . which should be a consideration when deciding whether to outlaw something. Not just "Is it wrong?", but "Is government interdiction the best way to abolish it?" Where has all the prudence gone?
And Confederate Papist: are you a state's rights person when it comes to slavery? There is no shortage of hard right conservatives who argue that the Federal governemnt had no right to 1) prevent seccession and 2) abolish slavery. I am not a stae's rights absolutist: slavery, the definign of a human being, is a federal matter. Deciding what a woman'sobligations are to a fetus that inhabits her body, is not. . .even if the morality is the same in each case.
And Neocarlist wonders if "if you could find a child or two who was not slaughtered because Bush reversed the Clintonista executive order requiring the military hospitals to perform abortions."
Clinton required women to have abortions when they didn't want them?
the man should be arrested immediately.
Or is this more failure to see a difference between directly causing and failing to prevent?
Phosphorious,
You talk alot like Morning's Minion. You must read Vox Nova.
"I am against abortion, but am not in favor of those who bomb clinics either."
When was the last clinic bombing, again?
DRH - you prove my point, I think.
phosphorious - your comment on states right shows you clearly don't understand the concept. Slavery is indeed evil and is rightfully abolished. Sadly, it still exists in the world. However, a slave can escape slavery, an unborn child cannot escape an abortion. Obama even advocates the killing of a child that survives the abortion process, which is even more distressing.
As far as what the federal government say regarding a woman's obligation, I could care less. I worry more about what God says in the matter.
Confederate Papist:
"As far as what the federal government say regarding a woman's obligation, I could care less. I worry more about what God says in the matter."
Then it shouldn't bother you whether abortion is legal or not.
Which leads me to ask: why AREN'T you in favor of bombing abortion clinics? It's killing to defend innocent life, which is not immoral, whatever the law says.
Could it be that you recognize that even if an end is good, that doesn't justify just any means to that end?
phosphorious - bombing an abortion clinic would only enbolden the pro-aborts and their ilk, plus it is illegal. Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I don't believe the tax system is legal either, but I have to pay them and hope and pray through action that the law is changed somehow.
Same can be said about abortion. Most women, when shown an ultra sound of the human being inside them, change their mind, and even if they don't decide to raise the child, have the child put up for adoption.
"Most women, when shown an ultra sound of the human being inside them, change their mind, and even if they don't decide to raise the child, have the child put up for adoption."
You mean they make this decison without federal coercion?
I didn't think such a thing was possible!
"You mean they make this decison without federal coercion?"
In your repeated refrain about 'coercion' you seem to forget that the issue is a human child. Yes, the government should be in the business of applying coercion to prevent murder of the innocent. It's the minimum obligation of a government.
And by the way, I agree. Clinton should be arrested immediately. Thanks for mentioning it.
One further point:
Obamamessiah?
Show me one person who has been denied communion for failing to support Obama.
On the other hand, here are NINE people who were given a choice of repenting or leaving their church when they failed to vote for Bush:
http://www.yuricareport.com/
Domi...utOfChurch.html
And then theres Kmiec.
The idea that OBAMA is malevolently blurring the line between church and party is laughable.
Yeah, a lot of these clinics have them, at least the preganancy crisis centers do. The ACLU, NOW and other pro-abort groups are trying to force these places to not do the ultra sounds.
I think you're splitting hairs here, and I am not really sure where you are going with all of your statements. Whether it's legal or not, it is a crime against humanity, the feds refuse to let the public have it's say on the matter, which in itself is wrong.
phosphorious - in regards to your link to the NC church, wrong is wrong. What that pastor did was wrong, but he is the one who suffers for it in the long run.
One can be democrat and pro-life, i.e. Zell Miller, but most of the time these poor people get excoriated by the radical majority of that party.
Neocarlist:
"In your repeated refrain about 'coercion' you seem to forget that the issue is a human child."
Exactly wrong. And this is the mistake that pro-lifers make: if I don't want the government to solve this problem, then I must want babies to die.
As for Clinton: make your charges and find a judge to issue a warrant. You will be flabbergasted to find that "I don't like X" is NOT equivalent to "X is a criminal".
Confederate Papist: "Splitting hairs"? I really don't see any sophistry in the claim that not every sin has a legal remedy. And that giving the government the power to enforce certain moral laws causes more harm than good.
Did you ever look up "Ceaucescu"?
Phosphorious,
Abortion is muder - plain and simple. I understand that presently, many do not see it that way, but then again, many did not see slavery as inherently wrong as well. It was still wrong however.
Are you supporting the "right" of individuals to "choose" to murder their children? Are you saying government should not get involved in the murder of children? You are attempting to make a case for "choice" when the choice is murder. Does not make sense as a faithful Catholic.
I know enough about Ceaucescu. I don't get your point. So you're saying if the USA reverses Roe, it will be like Ceaucescu's Romania? His reversal was not absolute, either, it was conditional.
I am not suggesting a theocracy, either, however, a country without morals, that fails to defend the life of any of it's citizens, born or unborn, will be doomed to fail.
Supper time.....ciao!
I've generaly found that those who make a point of using the term fetus in this sort of discussion, don't care much about the life in question, or at least are subordinating it to some other perceived good.
At my age I doubt that I'll be flabbergasted by much. You might be flabbergasted to find that "X not being considered a criminal by current corrupt culture does not mean that X is not a criminal."
Actually, I believe that Aquinas made the point that not everything that is immoral should be outlawed due to causing more harm than good. I don't think he was applying the notion to child slaughter. I can't see that stopping over a million murders a year will cause greater harm.
And Ceaucescu? Are you using a leftist dictator as an argument in what appears to be a defense of a leftist candidate? What Ceaucescu-like horrors did we have before abortion was legalized?
Derek,
I am saying that the biological facts of abortion present practical legal difficulties. the fetus inhabits the mother.
Shall we imprison woman, who is suspected of wanting an abortion, for nine months to prenet her from doing so?
A law must be moral, but it must also be enforceable.
Given that there is no obvious connection between anti-abortion laws and lower rates of abortion, I think our energy is better spent elsewhere.
Allowing a child to die of hunger is a sin. . . but no conservative has ever used that as a defense of the welfare state. Quite the contrary.
And look, here is a practical consequence of current pro-life thinking:
If the problem of abortion MUST be addressed through law, then if there are anti-abortion laws, then the problem has been adressed, right?
Hardly.
Pro-lifers labor to elect the "right" kinds of presidents who will appoint the "right" kinds of judges. . .and then that's it.
Given that George "We don't torture depending on what you mean by torture and crushing a child's testicles doesn't count" Bush is the "right" kind of president. . . I'm feeling a little cynical about the whole thing.
(Enjoy your dinner Confederat Papist)
Well, I'll go along with being cynical there.
In my circles nobody has ever considered GW the "right kind" of candidate, just the "less wrong" kind of candidate. And the idea that Gore or Kerry (or Obama or Clinton) would have been less likely to fall into the "we're all scared so we have to torture" trap is silly.
I too must now surrender to the necessities of dinner, bedtime reading, and then more work.
phos - what about Obama's refusal to voe against the Born Alive Protection Act?The man thinks that babies who SURVIVE an abortion should be thrown in a dumpster! How can you support someone who enjoys the thought of babies dying slow, agonizing deaths??
"Allowing a child to die of hunger is a sin. . . but no conservative has ever used that as a defense of the welfare state. Quite the contrary."
And it's also a felony in all 50 states... The comparison is inexact.
"How can you support someone who enjoys the thought of babies dying slow, agonizing deaths??"
You know he ENJOYS it? He does it for fun, as a hobby?
"And it's also a felony in all 50 states... The comparison is inexact."
Then, assuming that soem child has starved to death somewhere, then I am a felon, because I did nothing to stop it. THIS is the issue, not whether abortion is wrong, but whetehr a politician who votes pro-choice is a murderer. No more than a politician who votes against food stamps is. . .even though that vote may be connected by winding chains of causation to a dead child.
Meanwhile, the church's single-minded crusade against abortion has given us a president who by all accounts DOES enjoy torture, and who is on the record as mocking someone who was unjustly executed.
Mr Comerford:
Let's see. Mr McCain was shot down on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam. Our policy included bombing civilian population centers. It would be a miracle if he never killed innocent civilians.
Someone bring phos a basin to wash his hands in.
Phos -
Yes, he does.
So, how can you justify voting for him?
JoAnna, you know nothing of the kind. I suggest that you quit now.
12 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
