The Shotgun Blog
« Question for Leftist Fever Swamp: Is Dona Cadman Lying Now? | Main | WS Radio: Matt Welch and John Lewis audio »
Monday, March 03, 2008
Gloria Steinem says: McCain's POW experience no big deal
AUSTIN, Texas—Feminist icon Gloria Steinem took to the stump on Hillary Clinton’s behalf here last night and quickly proved that she has lost none of her taste for provocation.
...
"Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.
Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”
...
“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody."
And on Obama:
“A majority of Americans want redemption for racism, for our terrible destructive racist past and so see a vote for Obama as redemptive...I don’t think as many want redemption for the gynocide.”
UPDATE:
I forgot to include what may be Steinem's best line, delivered in an interview to the Observer:
Steinem insisted that “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”
Oh, and Ron Paul booster Lew Rockwell enthusiastically agrees with Steinem's remarks.
Posted by Terrence Watson on March 3, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5509463038833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gloria Steinem says: McCain's POW experience no big deal:
Comments
From what I can find in your post, she didn't say his capture and torture were "no big deal". She only said that it doesn’t qualify one to be president. Did I get that right?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-03 5:46:40 PM
Gloria Steinem trying to defend the hiring of female firefighters also said
"It's better to drag them out, because there is less smoke down there. I mean, we're probably killing people by carrying them out at that height, you know, so – I mean, you know, we need to look sensibly here at these jobs and what they really require, and not just some idea of what macho is."
After that, I wouldn't pay too much attention to her checklist as to what constitutes qualifications for any job. Would you?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-03 5:58:56 PM
McCain was not tortured while incarcerated, rather he was coddled having been recognized as a ranking US admiral's son and thereby valuable as a bargaining and propaganda chip.
McCain's rep as a "war hero" is fraudulent, like most things in politics.
But the little people on the "right" need to believe in it, so there it is.
Posted by: Burton | 2008-03-03 6:35:08 PM
Burton,
"McCain's rep as a "war hero" is fraudulent, like most things in politics.
But the little people on the "right" need to believe in it, so there it is. "
Well, I wasn't there so I'll have to take your word for it. What's that? You burnt your draft card so you weren't there either.
I'll be damned. A lefty who thinks he knows it all. I never thought I'd live to see such a thing.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-03 6:40:20 PM
h20273kk9:
Your argument is the very reason blogs like this one are not taken seriously as a forum for exchanging ideas.
Reports that McCain's status as a war hero are exaggerated have been around for years and have been taken very seriously by a large portion of the Republican Party, albeit quietly.
http://www.namvets.com/Reading/john_mccain_is_no_war_hero.htm
Your assertion that the poster is a "lefty" because he holds a different opinion than yours or advances or asserts ideas with which you are not familiar, is childish.
Having read a number of your posts, it is clear to me that not only do you blindly subscribe to what might be considered a garden variety neoconservatism, but you also make no effort to educate or persuade in your posts. Pity. At least Burton has brought something newish to the table.
Posted by: Egmont Forever | 2008-03-03 6:56:39 PM
wow, i didnt even know that old haggard windbag was even still alive...well on the plus side she cant have MUCH more time left...
Posted by: SW | 2008-03-03 7:15:48 PM
Egmont,
"Having read a number of your posts, it is clear to me that not only do you blindly subscribe to what might be considered a garden variety neoconservatism, but you also make no effort to educate or persuade in your posts. Pity. At least Burton has brought something newish to the table."
Thank you for your input. Again, I ask, were you there?
Or is calling someone childish because you disagree supposed to make you feel superior than to someone calling another a lefty?
Have a nice ballot.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-03 8:05:56 PM
Egmont,
I had more time to dissect your posts so here goes.
"Your assertion that the poster is a "lefty" because he holds a different opinion than yours or advances or asserts ideas with which you are not familiar, is childish. "
How can you write that and yet in the same post write the following hypocritical statement?
"Having read a number of your posts, it is clear to me that not only do you blindly subscribe to what might be considered a garden variety neoconservatism, ... "
Where did you ever get the idea that I was a neoconservative?
I am fiercely independent. For crying out loud, on the other thread, Snowy falsely, jumped to the conclusion that I don't support women only gyms because I criticized Harvard's decision.
Where do you people come from?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-03 8:55:43 PM
h2o273kk9,
I have to believe with the posters on the other side of your argument, though I am not sure what your argument is, other than a tarzanian 'mccain good!'. Anyway.
Countless sources, who indeed were in Viet Nam, and who indeed did serve as POWs have called foul on McCain's "war hero" claim for decades. Yes, I place quotation marks around the term; I don't believe that an imbecile, churlish, spoiled admiral's son withstood any sort of torture. And I base this on his own testimony. McCain's claims went from self-admitted war CRIMINAL to "war hero" as he figured out he had some very good political prospects.
McCain is facing his own Swift Boat assault out there, except this time, the stories are true.
Sigh...NO, I am not a leftist, so save your yes, childish ad hominem.
Apart from your inexplicable willingness to buy McCain's baseless claim to hero-dom, your argument that because a doubter was not present at the Hanoi Hilton, then she or he may not criticize the great god McCain's bogus claims. My question to YOU is: were YOU there? If not, why on G-d's green Earth would you accept the word of a politician? Are you that gullible?
Finally, based on my own perusal of your output, it strikes me that you ARE a neoconservative by default, as are many if not most conservatives today. I myself am mainly of that persuasion, having abandoned liberaldom only seven or eight years ago when I moved to Texas and grew up. What I don't understand is why people who so clearly subscribe to the tenets of this political creed won't admit it? Is it because they are as unaware and as unthinking as critics say you (and sometimes, me) are? Enlighten me, please!!!
Ultimately, H20, I do not believe you spend much time at all thinking about or learning about the creed to which you subscribe largely via knee jerk.
Posted by: Hector Aguirres | 2008-03-04 2:10:13 AM
Hector,
"Ultimately, H20, I do not believe you spend much time at all thinking about or learning about the creed to which you subscribe largely via knee jerk."
What is my creed that I don't think about?
"I have to believe with the posters on the other side of your argument, though I am not sure what your argument is, other than a tarzanian 'mccain good!'."
I challenge you to provide proof about McCain and the best you can do is assert that I just support him.
Based on what? Where have I ever supported him?
That's why I don't trust such posts. You are jumping to conclusions about me. Perhaps you are jumping to conclusions on these rumours about McCain.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 8:07:30 AM
>"McCain is facing his own Swift Boat assault out there, except this time, the stories are true."
Hector Aguirres | 4-Mar-08 2:10:13 AM
If you are suggesting the Swift Boat veterans testimony isn't true, perhaps you can point up where that has been proven and tell me why John Kerry hasn't sued them?
Also, let's pretend John McCain wasn't tortured, just so we can get beyond that, is John's flying attack aircraft over the most heavily air defended city in history, second only to WWII Berlin, enough to suggest he had courage as a Navy pilot?
Do you even believe John McCain was injured when he was shot down?
Hector, what reasoning would any reader use to conclude that you are anything but a Leftist when you suggest against all evidence that the Swift Boat veterans are lying And John McCain wasn't tortured.
Whose cause does that serve other than the Left?
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-04 8:13:06 AM
h2o273kk9 - is embroiled in defending himself against all sorts of flack based on nutty extravagant extrapolations from very modest measured insights relating to Gloria Steinem's stupid hyperbole.
I have participated in the critical attack on Senator McCain's war time experience as prisoner in the infamous North Viet Nam prison.
I criticize Senator McCain about his utterly duplicitous gaming of the political party divide (e.g. Left versus Right), which to my mind is the opposite of Leadership or Representation, which are the two jobs of an elected political official.
I would never even think to question the honor of an American military man who spent years in a terrible enemy prison for our captured soldiers, except for Senator McCain's innumerable subsequent (dishonorable) actions regarding his own family and his utterly craven self-serving and (I think Treasonous, vis a vis the attack on freedom of political speech embodied in his McCain-Feingold legislation) conduct in public office.
Senator McCain is able to deliver (and probably write) an excellent rousing speech before a large audience. Other than that I find no value in him.
He had a wife and three children at home without him for every minute of the years when he was a prisoner of war in Viet Nam. Even WITH letters (which prisoners undoubtedly were not allowed to write) the family members left at home suffer tremendously while the military member serves in the line of danger.
McCain returned home and promptly began cheating on his wife with a MUCH younger (but very rich and pretty) woman, who he then divorced his wife to marry. That is a huge breech, which is incomprehensible to my notion of "war hero" type of activity.
Then McCain's absolutely quixotic fickle changing of sides on innumerable fundamental issues of his supposedly chosen political "beliefs" is similarly incomprehensible to my experience.
I don't believe anything good about Seantor McCain. There is plenty of anecdotal "evidence" or rationale to suggest he is a phony.
If he was in fact heroic in his military service then I've done a grave injustice to him for which I will be very ashamed. My experiences in life, including very diligent and difficult, but far from heroic military service, among a lot of men in all sorts of circumstances and walks of life, warn me against Senator McCain for any position of actual authority or responsibility.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-03-04 9:04:39 AM
Conrad,
Speaking for myself, I am not a McCain supporter.
Why?
Because I am NOT an American and I don't get to vote in American elections.
What I think about is Alberta and Canada.
I think about what will happen in Ottawa if a Democrat becomes POTUS and pulls the plug on Afghanistan.
I also think that, regardless of John McCain's infidelities, the Communist meme that there is no honor in soldiering and American or Canada isn't worth the sacrifice, that those who made the sacrifice didn't or that the extent to which they made a sacrifice is overblown for cheap cynical political reasons, that there is nothing sacred or good, that life is just to die "so why die earlier for anything?" these cancerous Leftist memes must be resisted regardless of John Mccain's personal philandering after he returned from years of torture and imprisonment.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-04 9:28:00 AM
Conrad,
Well written, measured and if even half of what you said is true, McCain has a lot to answer for and is not worthy of my support.
My point, as I think you understand, has been that
1) Gloria Steinem's opinion is worthless. This is a person who will justify any slander or put anyone's life in jeopardy in order to serve her ideology. The firefighter's quote should highlight that.
2) McCain did serve his country and sacrifice a lot more than I will ever be asked to do. I wasn't there to see his treatment but I strongly doubt he received 5 star accommodations at the Hanoi Hilton.
Does that mean he should be given a free pass on his politics or personal life? No!
Just that Steinem and those attacking him based on these rumours are even lower than McCain.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 9:37:50 AM
re: "Gloria Steinem's opinion is worthless"
You can take issue with Steinem's opinion, but grant her this. She at least calls it _her_ opinion, putting a name to it and facing the blowback like a woman. By your measure of worth and worthlessness, where does that leave the sheltered opinions of a safely anonymous h2o273kk9? Less than worthless?
Some light reading: http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/darien/29752.shtml
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2008-03-04 9:53:51 AM
Steve Tsuida
"By your measure of worth and worthlessness, where does that leave the sheltered opinions of a safely anonymous h2o273kk9? Less than worthless?"
My opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. As is yours.
However, I won't advocate putting people's lives needlessly in jeopardy to prove my opinion right.
And McCain at least put his own life on the line. Again, does that mean he is right by default because of that? Nope. But I will listen and then pass judgement.
So much my knee-jerk neo-conservative creed, eh.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 10:16:32 AM
I think Steinem's have merit simply by being made public with a face to a name. I'll even say Adam Yoshida's opinions have merit just for being Adam's opinions offered honestly in public. That's part of public discourse. But anonymous potshots and anonymous rantings are immune to worth. They speak of a contempt for your own society, that Canada might be so uncivil as to be a place where only the suicidal dare speak their mind. That our democracy and society have so failed that poor h2o273kk9 must post anonymously for fear of the wild mob. But since we both know that's hogwash, I almost want to assume you post anonymously because you don't believe your own posted messages enough to stand by them and this is all just a free turn-based MMORPG to you. But it's a nice sunny day out and I'm feeling good so I'll be generous and say I think it's because you're just shy, which is ok. You make up for it with great grammar and tidy punctuation!
Have a good one!
Your pal,
– Steve
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2008-03-04 10:52:24 AM
H2 said: Gloria Steinem… also said 'It's better to drag them out, because there is less smoke down there…' After that, I wouldn't pay too much attention to her checklist as to what constitutes qualifications for any job. Would you?"
For what it's worth, our soldiers are trained (and equipped with harnesses) to drag the wounded if a stretcher isn't an option. US Firmen–men–are generally issued personal drag harnesses as well. I'm all for pointing out when someone's talking out of their butt, but in this case it looks your point may have backfired: Armed and emergency services think it's better to drag.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 11:08:31 AM
Steve
"I think Steinem's have merit simply by being made public with a face to a name."
I base my judgements on merit based on the value of what they are saying and the deeds that back them up. Not on who is saying it or by the fact they may have a big mouth and like to see their names in print.
"... I almost want to assume you post anonymously because you don't believe your own posted messages enough to stand by them and this is all just a free turn-based MMORPG to you. "
Why "almost"? Why don't you go all the way and read my mind.
"But anonymous potshots and anonymous rantings are immune to worth. "
Yet you feel compelled to dissect my posts anyway. Curious contradiction in behaviour.
BTW, I have no way of verifying that you really are Steve Tsuida. And even if that is your real name, it costs you nothing because I know nothing about you. Not that it makes a difference.
In short, you are essentially anonymous as well from my point of view so your objections about my postings as being worthless because they are anonymous are well, equally worthless on the same grounds.
Enjoy the sunshine.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 11:13:45 AM
Speller -
Your insights and knowledge regularly inform me and bolster my convictions on the wide range of issues touched in this blog.
I very definitely agree with you about the harm which a Leftist anti-freedom (anti-human, if one takes my view of abortion) POTUS could cause.
The risk that I expect to take by voting for someone who I WANT to be POTUS (i.e. NOT McCain or Hillary or Obama), even if that person "cannot win" and thus my intended action will inadvertently "throw the election" to Hillary-Obama; I think that risk is offset by the real liklihood that our thoroughly Communist media would use McCain even more effectively than they would get such service from Hillary-Obama.
By that I mean, the Communists/main stream media will readily portray all political issues during a "McCain Presidency" as being thoroughly and entirely conservatively argued, as best as possible, and if not "won" by the "stanch conservative McCain side" then certainly well considered, and thus ALWAYS the media machine will operate to lull the very busy hard working consumed by daily affairs American citizenry into thinking that "our man" is vigilently on the job, when in fact I think McCain is Hillary's evil-Leftist-twin.
Whereas Hillary would be vigorously opposed and examined for her every breath of air by the (freedom loving segment of the) American public, and thus she will be check-checkmated as was her charmingly eloquent husband (who fortunately "accomplished" nothing of his Leftist "beliefs" during his terms in office).
Obama is the more dangerous (unknown) Leftist, but he too may be "checked" in his actions to screw up America and the propsects for freedom which America champions throughout the world.
Obama might well be checked against outrageous screwups by the people of America who would like to see actual improvement in the achievements and contributions by America's black people (i.e. beginning with the black people themselves, who certainly must hate the crap of low expectations and utter dependence upon government that their black "leadership" has used to extract unending figurative "reparations").
Black people in America are fiercly proud and patriotic Americans (in spite of Mrs. Obama's sickeningly stupid statement indicating the opposite). I don't think they would let Obama soil America on the world stage by taking ANY precipitous action to remove our military forces from Afghanistan or Iraq (whereas "super hero military genius" McCain could do exactly that without a peep, i.e. that's what I'm doing now).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-03-04 11:17:20 AM
Pattern Recognition
Thank you for clarifying things. Like you, I have my doubts, though, that this is what Steinem intended.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 11:18:56 AM
H2, you're welcome but actually I don't doubt this is what she intended. That she knew about the smoke risks (which prompted the switch to a drag harness to rescue firemen themselves) tells me she did some reading on the matter. I think she knew that there had been methodology and technology changes to the business of rescue that were changing how important bigness and burliness really were in the job (even though tat may have more to do with a fat-assed population and soaring demands, than a small-framed service). Just a an example, I can move three fifty pound kayaks down a boat ramp with one free and almost no effort, thanks to a $20 cart from MEC. And think of how much luggage a tired college-aged woman can tow through a busy airport with a few well-placed little wheels on her suitcases.
If you disagree with her attack on McCain, attack that by attacking that, but don't attack it by attacking an earlier argument which it looks like she was actually right about. It only lends strength to her other thoughts, which I'm sure wasn't your goal.
"McCain is a good president because a woman can't move a man."
"But a woman can move a man. So does that suggest McCain is a bad president?"
Obviously an exaggeration, but you get the idea.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 11:45:00 AM
PR
"McCain is a good president because a woman can't move a man."
No kidding that this is an exaggeration. It's not even the ball park.
Please re-read my posts and confirm where I ever supported McCain or thought he would make a good president. He is entirely disconnected from my reasons for discounting Steinem's opinion.
To rephrase: I find Steinem's opinion to be worthless based on what she said, not based about whom she said it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the job of a firefighter is to get the occupants out of the burning building as quickly and as safely as can be done. While each situtation calls for different measures, rigging a harness included, many situations call for a fireman's lift and running like hell.
There are plenty of women who can do that. The ones that can't shouldn't be jeopardizing the rest.
"Just a an example, I can move three fifty pound kayaks down a boat ramp with one free and almost no effort, thanks to a $20 cart from MEC. "
Good for you. Now let's see you do it with a limp body on the third storey while fire rages all around you. You have 60 seconds. GO!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 11:56:07 AM
PR: Have you ever tried to drag a 220 pound body? Not too many women could do that very well. So being able to carry someone isn't even the issue.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-03-04 12:18:03 PM
You're still on the firefighting issue rather than discussing whether being a former POW adds to a candidate's qualifications as C in C.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 12:19:00 PM
PR
"You're still on the firefighting issue rather than discussing whether being a former POW adds to a candidate's qualifications as C in C."
Well, the short answer, is "Yes it does". It does ADD to their qualifications.
The long answer is that it is not the be all and end all. It is only one part of a resume that I shall examine. Missing that part on your resume does not DISqualify you either.
Now, back to Steinem's view
"This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”
It is, however, part of something called the life experience and brings a perspective worth hearing. Not ridiculing as Steinem seems to think.
Don't you think it has any value, whatsoever?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 12:32:31 PM
In fairness, I think we're on to something here though. If a point that Gloria Steinem makes about how to pull a person from one of those referential burning buildings can be thoroughly smashed to bits, I think we can pave the way for a Huckabee White House. Who here remembers how on October 22, 1976, on national TV, Carter was able to stall Ford's momentum by refuting Jack Hitte's thoughts on bicameral mind psychology.
Ford: "With the fiscal program that I have, and if you look at the projections, it shows that we will reduce unemployment, that we will continue to win the battle against inflation, and at the same time give the kind of quality of life that I believe is possible in America."
Moderator: "Thank you. Governor Carter, your response please."
Carter: "Freud's heir apparent broke away from Freud's psychoanalytic theories and developed his own...a keen difference was Jung's more receptive orientation towards interior life compared to Freud's emphasis on the objective life and the empirical."
Man, the look on Ford's face! It was over.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 12:44:35 PM
"It is, however, part of something called the life experience and brings a perspective worth hearing. Not ridiculing as Steinem seems to think. Don't you think it has any value, whatsoever?"
People are shaped by their experiences and who they are as a person will define how they perfom on the job, and the presidency is a job so of course his experiences matter somewhat, but it's an election campaign and like Rudy's brand was 911 and Mitts brand was his hair and Obama's brand is his charisma, MacCain's brand has been built on his legend. Everyone competing with McCain has to go after that legend, and the voters will only benefit. Take away the brand, and see what's left besides the PoW experience, besides the war heroics, besides the panache. If McCain minus Vietnam is still Presidential, if Obama minus the Rock Star element is still Presidential, if Hillary minus her Clintonness is still Presidential, then fine. But I'm all for letting the questions go asked and I think it's fair to ask whether there's a correlation between trauma and leadership, just like it's fair to ask whether an appetite for racial and gender reconciliation should shape the campaign. Don't you? Heaven forbid they elect an unvetted candidate.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 12:56:22 PM
PR,
"I think it's fair to ask whether there's a correlation between trauma and leadership, ..."
Yep. Fair.
Is that what Steinem was doing? Could have fooled me.
Is there a correlation between ridiculing the efforts, sacrifices, and experiences of firefighters and POWs and grabbing headlines in furtherance of a personal agenda without concern for the effect it has on public discourse or safety?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 1:10:10 PM
"Is there a correlation between ridiculing the efforts, sacrifices, and experiences of firefighters and POWs and grabbing headlines…?"
Grabbing headlines? I did a search through the newswire feeds and there were about 28 news articles even mentioning Steinem that had been indexed to date (the first two mentioned in Wiener Zeitung, Österreich and Gay Wired—which begs the question how you guys even found this story…), while 301 articles were indexed on that Marine killing a puppy—most of them front page MSM news. If I were McCain and wanting to go after someone who was tarnishing the notion of a military man as a leader I'd go after that Marine ten times as hard as I was going after Gloria. The puppy story hits hard into the base where Bill Clinton scored big in 98, soccer moms. Steinem's only going to resonate with feminists. Compare the voter block size and allocate resources.
This would have been so much easier if you just said "I don't like Gloria Steinem."
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 1:22:32 PM
By the way, while I was looking for GLoria's grabbed headlines I found this one grabbed by NATO commander Wesley Clark.
"But having served as a fighter pilot -- and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam -- that doesn't prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."
Anyway, since I butted in, you can go twice on your turn.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 1:28:44 PM
PR
" If I were McCain and wanting to go after someone who was tarnishing the notion of a military man as a leader I'd go after that Marine ten times as hard as I was going after Gloria. "
You'll have to bring me up to speed here. Are you suggesting this thread and the article from which it sprang is a result of a McCain directed manoeuvre?
"This would have been so much easier if you just said "I don't like Gloria Steinem."
I thought that was obvious. I felt the need to explain myself though otherwise people like Steve Tsuida might assume I was just being ideological and knee-jerk.
The question is why don't I like her. Well, she ridicules people's life experiences while I try to take into consideration those experiences before pontificating.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 1:32:50 PM
PR,
"Anyway, since I butted in, you can go twice on your turn."
Very polite. Thank you.
Clark is right but incomplete. However, it is an experience Hillary doesn't have, fer'nstance.
However, she has other experiences that need to be examined. But then so does McCain.
Get my point? Ridiculing a valuable experience demeans it and shows the person doing it as a shallow thinker.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 1:38:40 PM
"You'll have to bring me up to speed here. Are you suggesting this thread and the article from which it sprang is a result of a McCain directed manoeuvre?"
Nah. But I do think many bloggers and hangers-on are putting way too much attention on something that's already evaporated in the media and the General Discussion. I think they're getting a bit twitchy looking for threats. I'm guessing American's want leaders they can move towards instead of bogeymen they can run from, but blogs and message boards are generally better at finding the bogeymen.
Come to think of it, that might explain why the WAP evaporated yesterday. They were a run from party instead of a run to party. Run from this, run from that, this is bad, that's bad. But I don't really recall hearing why to run to them.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-04 1:45:43 PM
"which begs the question how you guys even found this story"
Pattern,
If you must know, I discovered the Observer piece through the ultra-lefty website Democratic Underground. Most of them didn't have much appreciation for Steinem's comments, either.
Well. Some of the real commies did, but that's all.
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-03-04 1:50:31 PM
PR
"But I do think many bloggers and hangers-on are putting way too much attention on something that's already evaporated in the media and the General Discussion."
That's their job. To get us participating. It worked. We're here. After all, you did say this, didn't you?
"But I'm all for letting the questions go asked and I think it's fair to ask whether there's a correlation between trauma and leadership, just like it's fair to ask whether an appetite for racial and gender reconciliation should shape the campaign. Don't you? Heaven forbid they elect an unvetted candidate."
We're vetting McCain as a candidate and the relevance of his experiences and we're vetting Steinem and the relevance of her commentary.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-04 2:01:56 PM
Shocking to see that the McCainiac neocons on here are meeting with some opposition.
I wish I could find it now, but I read an excellent peice (citing several more) that make it abundantly clear that McCain a) flew poorly; b) was a cowwardly bomber of women and children; c) ADMITTED same; d) crashed due to his own incompentence; e) was injured and subesequently beaten; f) was recognized as an admiral's son and thereafter given prferential treatment; g) spent most of his time indulging alcohol and prostitutes at the Hanoi Hilton; h) gave away vital military information that cost American lives countless times; i) did NOT refuse to leave captivity, as that decision was at the sole discretoin of his CAPTORS; j) worked with an ad agency to develop his "war hero" street cred.
The man is an affront to all he surveys.
Surpised it is taking so many WS neocons and yoshida-heads to figure it out.
Posted by: Pierre Murphy | 2008-03-05 4:06:35 PM
Pierre,
I heard he kicks puppies, too.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-05 4:09:05 PM
H20,
I gather that you do not so much contribute anything original or thoughtful here so much as you run around REACTING to everybody else's postings, most of which you do not understand, and all of which seem to trouble your hypersensitive soul.
Review the facts, or uckfoffay, umbduckfay.
Posted by: Pierre Murphy | 2008-03-05 4:14:48 PM
Pierre,
"I gather that you do not so much contribute anything original ..."
But how can I possibly compare with originality such as
"uckfoffay, umbduckfay"
I stand in awe of your command of language. It this something you learned or were you born with it?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-05 4:19:04 PM
Guys...
I hate to say this, but this back and forth sniping is not really contributing anything to the discussion.
Pierre, can you agree that one might question Gloria Steinem's comments not only on their truth, but also in regard to the political wisdom of her making them while stumping for Hillary Clinton in the first place?
And can't it also be agreed that one can question the wisdom of making the comments without in turn endorsing McCain?
It should also be noted that Hillary's campaign has already basically disavowed Steinem's comments. Doesn't that tell us something?
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-03-05 4:24:09 PM
Terrence,
"I hate to say this, but this back and forth sniping is not really contributing anything to the discussion."
Um. But you then went on to state both my points. Does this mean I did contribute after all and Pierre is wrong about me?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-05 4:28:19 PM
H20,
I wasn't referring to all your comments (or all of Pierre's.) Of course I think you make positive contributions to the Shotgun :-). I just wanted to cut off a flame war before one started (without starting one myself, hopefully.)
Also, I thought I might try to bring the discussion back around to the two points I mentioned, no matter who stated them first.
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-03-05 4:33:56 PM
Terrence,
Fair enough. And I agree.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-05 4:35:28 PM
Terrence,
You have just raised again a point I made earlier.
I don't support Senator McCain for POTUS.
I don't support the Democrat hopefuls either.
I haven't read or heard anything credible which makes me doubt the official historic record of John McCain's military service.
(and people who come to this Blog haven't provided any links to support their allegations)
I therefore believe the official record regarding Senator McCain's military service but I still don't support Senator McCain for POTUS.
I find it offencive that people, such as Gloria Steinem, declare that Senator McCain's sacrifices in the service of his country are fabrications, because such service is good and honourable, and such attacks amount to attacking virtue by people who seem to have little virtue themselves.
I'm sure there are a great many Americans who feel similarly.
If Ms. Steinem wants Senator Clinton to win, and she feels that her contribution should take the form of an attack on John McCain rather than to point up Hillary Clinton's considerable accomplishments, John McCain has done some very questionable things, politically, that Ms. Steinem could highlight.
It is intolerable that people on the Left feel it is necessary to establish their own bonafides by attacking the character of others, rather than uplifting their own Champions so that we might see the virtue that they themselves attribute to them.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-05 4:49:56 PM
Speller,
"It is intolerable that people on the Left feel it is necessary to establish their own bonafides by attacking the character of others, rather than uplifting their own Champions so that we might see the virtue that they themselves attribute to them."
I agree with everything you said but I need to add that the unfair treatment of McCain is also coming from the Right. And I'm with you in that I don't support him either. Attack him on his record. It is public knowledge.
Anyone can and often does claim anything in an attempt to smear people. Hence, my "I heard he kicks puppies" retort.
Either that or they resort to ridiculing sacrifice, etc. a la Steinem.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-05 5:01:07 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.