Bush Republicans: Tough on terrorism, tough on war heroes

Bush's history of using despicable political tactics to assassinate the character of anyone
who stands in the way of his political agenda is long and sordid.

Everyone remembers the swift boat campaign, but a lot of people seem to not remember
what the Bush campaign did to John McCain in the republican primaries in 2000.
You could call the 2000 primaries the "warm up" to the 2004 campaign, in terms of the strategy and the tactics
used. The tactics employed were strikingly similar but were intensified in 2004.

Let's start with a little background on Senator John McCain.

After many years of service in the US Senate McCain decided to run for US President but first
he would have to win in the republican primaries, beating the name recognition and
huge bank roll(about 5 times the size of McCains) of G.W. Bush.

After winning the New Hampshire primary handily, the war hero was set to go into the South Carolina primary
with momentum and the potential to all but ensure winning the republican nomination.


With a sense of desperation, the Bush campaign decided to take off the gloves and start using the
tactics of character assassination that had become characteristic of a Karl Rove run political campaign.


Enter the Bush/Rove smear campaign...

That former POW wacko! We don't want him to be in control of the nukes. He might have a flashback
and nuke Texas thinking it is a puppet nation for the North Vietnamese!
He may try to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!



You can read the interview of the Dallas Morning News reporter here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/slater.html


In Boston Globe article "The anatomy of a smear campaign", it is described how a Bush surrogate group
used "push polling" to try to appeal to the South Carolina voters' worst biases and assassinate not only the character of the war hero, John McCain, but that of his family as well.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/?page=1



While the Rovian surrogate groups attacked the war hero's character without shame, Bush publicly aligned
himself with a fringe veterans' group in an attempt to help destroy McCain's biggest strength in the campaign, his record of being a POW war hero who had served his country courageously in Vietnam.


Thomas Burch, leader of anti-McCain veterans group, appeared with Bush at a Bush rally and said:

"He voted in the Senate. He had the power to help veterans"

"He came home and he forgot us."

Eskew? Is that pronounced like askew? Could that be more befitting?



Five Senators who were also veterans wrote an official letter of rebuke to Bush:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr.../Reference/Times Topics/People/C/Cleland, Max


Exerpts of the letter of rebuke can be read here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/21/23649/5768

 

F McCain, he doesn't support net neutrality. I refuse to vote for anyone who does not support net neutrality, since 99% of republicans don't support it, I will probably sit out the mid terms and the 08 contest.
=\

 

Excellent post.

 

McCain is a loon... Always has been. I think the war did things to him. He's nuts.

 

Thank you for the crafted, deeply researched post.

In all seriousness, Jeremy: John McCain lived through more than you or I will ever see. I find him irascible, but justifiably so. I honor him as a vet who endured more than most could have endured. The very values you espouse as a conservative are embodied in people like the Senator, and I think it is a shame you dismissively characterize this honorable man as a "loon...nuts" so blithely.

 

He lived through much of what my Grandfather lived through as a German POW while serving the US (formerly of the Italian Navy) as an OSS Spy for the US in WWII. I could spend hours describing the unspeakable horrors he went through, and if he were alive I would take pictures of the scars. He was a great guy, but I never would have voted him into politics. He was a little off in many ways as a result.

He always took great care of his family, but he was crazy. McCain is just as loony. I honor and respect him as a vet, just as I did my Grandfather, but the truth is, he is NUTS. I've seen it before.

 

OK. I better understand your position. Now, however, can you provide specific examples of his "lunacy"?

 

McCain let himself get destroyed in S. Carolina way back when. He does not have what it takes to be President. Same argument vs. Kerry. Maybe Rove is just that much of a better political op than either had...but neither stood up.

By no means is this an endorsement of Bush---but give the devil his due.

(hopefully everyone knows thats an expression)

 

Speaking only for myself, I'm not really debating the relative merits of the Senator v. GWB for President - I'm going to the presumption of mental imbalance, to some of the sentiments expressed here re: the same. I simply have not seen any evidence of this "lunacy."

 

I guess it is his voting record that gets me the most. There is no logic to it.

Things like, voting for ANWR oil drilling, while also voting against it? Should I provide more examples?

John McCain, April 6th, 2000, voting against ANWR drilling:

Voted YES on killing budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 6)​

â—‹ John McCain, 2000, voting in favor of ANWR drilling:

Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)​

â—‹ John McCain, 2002, supporting filibuster against ANWR drilling:

Mr. President, I have thought long and hard about this debate and the vote that I will cast. I still hope we can achieve a more balanced national energy strategy, but I am not convinced that a key component of that policy should be to drill in ANWR. I will vote against the motions to invoke cloture on these amendments.​

â—‹ John McCain, 2003, opposing inserting ANWR drilling into un-filibusterable budget bill:

Six of the Senate's 51 Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona, on Friday announced they would not go along with a plan to tack ANWR drilling language onto a massive spending bill this spring that would enact the new 2004 budget for the federal government....
In addition to McCain, the letter was signed by Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Mike DeWine of Ohio. The six were part of a group of 8 Republicans who crossed the aisle last year to vote against ANWR drilling.
​

â—‹ John McCain, March 16th, 2005, voting against ANWR drilling:

Arizona Sen. John McCain joined a failed Democratic attempt on Wednesday to bar oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
McCain joined six other moderate Republicans and most Democrats in looking to stop proposed ANWR drilling.
​

â—‹ John McCain, March 18th, 2005, voting in favor of budget that included ANWR drilling:

The three anti-drilling Republicans who voted against the budget, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Mike DeWine of Ohio, were joined by George Voinovich, who supported drilling Wednesday. The four Republicans who voted for the budget after voting against oil development Wednesday were John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.​

â—‹ John McCain, December , 2005, voting against filibuster of ANWR in Defense Appropriations bill (lefty blogger's angry reaction):

I should note that "moderate environmentalist" McCain complained about the move by Ted Stevens to attach ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill - and then went right ahead and voted to end the filibuster. Which, of course, would have virtually guaranteed passage of ANWR drilling into law. Once again, why is he a hero of some on the left?​

â—‹ John McCain, January 22nd, 2006, arguing for oil independence:

McCain: U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil
A top Republican lawmaker said Sunday that America must explore alternate energy sources to avoid being held hostage by Iran or by "wackos" in Venezuela - an apparent reference to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's populist president.
Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said recent action by "Mr. Chavez" and by Iran's leaders make it clear that the United States will be vulnerable as long as it remains dependent on foreign energy.
"We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," McCain said on Fox News Sunday.
"We better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy, and our very lives, have when we're dependent on Iranian mullahs and wackos in Venezuela," said McCain, who challenged President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.
​

 

I can't stand when libs act like you cant criticize someone because they have been to war. So what? Look at Murtha, the man is halfway insane. Why is nobody allowed to call him on it? Og course he was in war, I'm sure he did a fantastic job, doesn't mean he cant be ridiculed about things. Even Kerry with the swift boat thing, doesn't matter if he was a coward or a hero, he was in the war and that's something we should all thank him for. But certainly it doesn't mean people can't question his service. I also hope Kerry runs again in 08, he will make a great person for the repubs to stomp on! =P

Cindy Sheehan? Whats up with her? Nobody can speak up and tell her to please go away, because if we hear your super annoying voice once more, we are all going to cut out our own eardrums.

 

Thanks for the links, Jeremy. I will take a deeper look. My initial read of the links does not show inconsistency, much less lunacy. If my memory is correct, the appropriations bill that is the heart of your post stank to high heaven - an 11th hour attempt by Stevens and others to sneak ANWR drilling into a military appropriations package. However one feels about the ANWR issue, it was an underhanded thing to do, and it was rightfully defeated.

 

Naples, the thing you will find with liberals is they will rip on and tear apart America all day long, then claim, that they are merely "questioning the current admistration".

However, the moment you "question" a liberal on anything, you are some how demeaning him/her or disrespecting them.

It's a very one sided way of looking at things. But that is what being liberal is all about. I really cannot fault someone for doing what they are supposed to do.

 

He is a liar and has turned into a dirtbag politician.
War hero or no war hero, he is a dirtbag. The repubs better hope they don't have this fool running in 08

He's more of a democrat than Bush is. Where are the real republicans lately? Or do we even have any?

 

Hahahahah. Yes, the refrain of the non-thinking - easier, of course, than actually putting in the effort. If you bothered to think more than leap to knee-jerk labels, you'd find I don't easily fit into any ideological camp.

What I was speaking to, and what Jeremy has started to provide, is his evidence for an accusation of lunacy. Pure and simple. I'd recommend you take a breath, think a bit more carefully, and try again.

 

Kinda like what happen with the minute men at Columbia? The students rushed the stage and refused to let him speak. After it was all over and they were interviewing the students, the reporter says "Free speech is a constitutional right, why would you try to take that away from some one?" The stupid hippies reply: "Well, we do believe in free speech, but not racist speech"

Soooo because we want to protect our boarders, now we are all nazi's? The very same liberals welcome enemies of the U.S. to speak at colleges with open arms, just as so they are bashing Bush during the speech. The liberals are seriously tearing our country a new A-Hole.

MIA, You listen to Savage?

 

Hope you're not referring to me, Jeremy. I do hope you probe my arguments for bullshit, and I do not take offense when you do. Now, if you simply throw labels on me, absent any substance, then I don't have the time as this is a stupid way of going about honorable debate.

The current President is an intransigent dogmatist to the point of ruin, in my opinion. I stood with him when he mounted the ruins of the WTC, and now stand with many others, including numerous members of his own party, questioning whether he ever had the goods to mount what he has begun. Personally, I'm angry as hell that men and women are coming home in body bags over something I believe was a constructed, empty premise.

Cindy Sheehan: yes, yes, please shut your "annoying voice." The one minor problem, is that I am not wont to judge any mother who lost her son to this phenomenal debacle.

One question: Have you given birth? I helped my wife give birth to our boy, and were he the one lost to this, in truth, I have no idea what she, or I, would do. I will not judge her.

 

I did not pick the ANWR issue for any other reason than to show a strange pattern of being for and against the issue. There are other times I have seen this, and that type of indecisiveness scares me. One thing I can say about Bush is, he has for the most part been consistent.

 

I hear you, Jeremy. But what I want to look at is when and where he changed his vote, if in fact he did. As I remember it, this lumping of ANWR with the military appropriations package was, as I said, done on an off-day, at the 11th hour - it was totally underhanded. If McCain indeed changed his position, it may have been in response to this development, not to ANWR itself which, from my reading of his record, he has been entirely consistent on.

By the way, outta here for awhile. My liberal ass is heading to my Dojo, where I will be teaching police officers tactical defense - you know, flower-power stuff like weapons retention, crowd control, weapons disarmament, that kind of thing.

 

I listen to just about everything

Nope not labling anyone.

I'm still standing there. I never forgot that day, and never will. I've not let politics get in the way of my convictions. I'm angry has hell that men and women end up in body bags over stupid things in America. More here in the US, than in Iraq or anywhere outside the US for that matter... We have bigger problems on the streets at home.

I feel sorry for her. She has not dealt with her grief. This is partly her fault, and partly the fault of those that continue to take advantage of her. She disrespects her child every day she continues this non-sense.

No, that would be a physical impossiblity given I am male. I helped my wife give birth to our boy as well. I , like you do not know what I would do if I lost my child. I do know this though. I would not blame someone else for my childs decision to protect his mother and father and the moonbats that so desperately want to tear America down. To do that would accomplish nothing. Whatever path my child chooses, I will be there for him. He could just as easily choose to be a police officer, and could be killed in the line of duty. If that happens, who then should I blame?

Please note, "moonbat" comment, was not necessarily directed at any one person, group or thing.