DNC Policy to Malign McCain's Military Record

Wesley Clark is the seventh prominent democrat to cast aspersions on McCain's service record. Can there be any doubt that this is directed by the DNC and no coincidence?

Jim Geraghty said that:

...Clark was disliked by only three groups: Those whom [sic] ranked above him in the chain of command whom he ignored, his peers at the same rank whom he lied to, and those serving beneath him whom he micromanaged. Other than that, everyone liked him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200402020857.asp

The seven are: George McGovern, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Bill Gillespie, Ed Schultz, Tony McPeak, and of course, Clark.

John McCain a member of the Hanoi Hilton for almost 7 years and refused to come home early when he could have because there were other Americans there. He was awarded the Silver and Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart as well as a slew of other medals and served honorably for 22 years.

Attacking that record is a huge mistake and if Obama allows it, he's just not very smart.

Well firstoff I would like to see a reference i.e. George McGovern and Tom Harkin.

I will grant the basics of the post however.

If you recall I posted early on that this is just republican style gutter politics and is no better when Democrats do it.

If it's any comfort to you I have determined and acknowledged that Schultz is a sleazeball and is probably deserving of the moniker Stephanie likes to hang on me partisan hack.

I did not agree with the character assassination of McCain when Bush did it and dont agree with it now by Obama.

(and I feel vindicated in my assertions early on that the Obama bunch would do this.)

I seem to remember a certain preacher from Zarr Chasm dong the same thing to Kerry.

Of course he wasn't alone.

It was scummy when the republicans did it and it is scummy now.

Didn't John Kerry trump up his Nam service and proclaimed that he was "reporting for duty?"

I think if a presidential candidate is using his military service as an argument in favor of his candidacy, then his record is fair game. But of course the "hunters" of this game need to be fair as well.

Right now I think the more attention (even negative attention) given to John McCain's service the better it is for him. The more people think of him as a veteran the less they think of him as a Republican. I still don't intend to vote for him, but I think the latest Clark attack is really stupid. If Wesley Clark wants to help Barack Obama, he'll vanish into obscurity. God help us all of that idiot ever becomes Secretary of Defense.

TerryRC wrote:I seem to remember a certain preacher from Zarr Chasm dong the same thing to Kerry.

Of course he wasn't alone.

It was scummy when the republicans did it and it is scummy now.

While I disagree that questioning Kerry's service was "scummy" (given the play he was hoping to get out of his service), I will say that, just like the Obama religion matter, there were so many better reasons not to support him. I wish we would, as a society, cast votes based on the issue positions and voting records of the candidates rather than so much that is so secondary vis a vis the Presidency. I care what the President intends to do, not what he did 20 years ago (or who he did it with). I'm sure that God will judge such matters, our votes can be cast with other considerations.

I think that when one attempts to become something they weren't, which was T. Boone Pickens assertions of John Kerry, that's a character issue.

For me, character counts in deciding whom I'm going to vote for.

For me, character counts in deciding whom I'm going to vote for.

Well, McCain is certainly a character...

Well the last three posters put me in the uncanny position of agreeing with all three of you.

I thought it was wrong when they swiftboated Kerry.

(and so did John McCain btw)

And now I think it is wrong to swiftboat McCain.

I also agree with Mike that the more the Obama bunch does this to McCain the better McCain will fare.

But the electorate has not historically let war heroes have a free ride. i.e. Bob Dole.

But at least Clinton did not try to trash Dole and claim he was somehow unfit as a result of his service like the Obama surrogates are attempting with McCain.

Do you think the DNC is putting this out there without the approval of BO Sherm?

No. I think the Obama bunch is now firmly in control of the DNC.

Just like they branded the Clintons as racist they are now trying to brand McCain as a loonie demented warmonger.

The Clintons aren't racist. They're equal opportunity opportunist. What Bill said about SC and the Obama campaign was the truth. So how is it racist if it's the truth?

And I agree, I think this is all done with Obama's blessing. I also think it's a mistake. A huge one. But I'd lay even odds that this may very well play up until September but by the fall, there will be no mention of McCain's military service except to praise it by the Obama campaign. I think he's trying to plant a seed, to throw something out there and see how it plays with the public and he'll pull back quick as soon as it hints that it will backfire.

I just don't think he's that stupid.

And I agree, I think this is all done with Obama's blessing.

And do you likewise think that, despite his public disavowell, that the ads at issue in this lawsuit were done with the blessing of Cecil Underwood?

Carey had to defend several ads, one that claimed Pritt, a former school-teacher, voted to teach first-graders about condoms.

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/176148-nine-years-worth-the-wait-for-carey

I didn't see anything in the article about Cecil Underwood Frank. Did Pritt's side contend he was responsible for them? If so, why wasn't it mentioned? All I read was that Carey proved by Pritt's own voting record that technically, the one ad mentioned was correct. Is that not the case?

About all I can say about Charlotte Pritt is that there's no way in hell she would have gotten my vote. Not after 92, when she spouted for months that democrats should rally behind the primary winner, and then when that turned out to be Caperton, she started her write in garbage. You could have ran in 96 and I would have voted for you over Pritt.

Looking back I think that was when the first crack in my democratic membership.

Well Zig I am sure you know about "plausible deniability".

I think the republicans are better at it than Dems.

In your example it does not matter if you believe Underwood did not know.

The question is whether it was plausible.

With the Obama situation they have taken over the DNC and are directly and actively involved in day to day ops.

So he has less plausible deniability.

Aaron, I'm not asking you about Charlotte Pritt. We already know that she is just too progressive for you. I was asking about another candidate- Cecil Underwood in the case I cite- giving or not giving his blessing to those Republican Committee ads.

So you don't recall that Underwood said he did not support those ads? I presumed that you were paying attention to the 1996 campaign for governor.

But maybe this will refresh your memory:

Pritt alleged that the two organizations fabricated information for their advertisements in support of Republican candidate Cecil Underwood, who publicly called for the ads to be pulled.
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/176147-pritt-loses-libel-suit

So my question, again, is do you likewise think that, despite his public disavowell, that the ads at issue in this lawsuit were done with the blessing of Cecil Underwood? Or is it only Democratic candidates who give their blessing to attack ads by so-called "independent" political committees?

I am not a big fan of the kooks at democraticunderground.com . But the Gazette's link to this is no longer active.

FAYETTEVILLE, W.Va. (AP) - Former Governor Cecil Underwood says Republican political ads attacking his Democratic opponent in the 1996 election were 'inappropriate.' He also said he asked the sponsors to stop running the advertisements.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2151274

So was Underwood telling the truth? Or did he, too, secretly give his "blessing" to those ads?

Well zig I think you missed my post when the page flipped to #2.

Butjust because Underwood did it does not mean it's ok for Obama.

He was supposed to be a new breed of pol. Break with the "politics of the past", etc.

ziggy wrote:Aaron, I'm not asking you about Charlotte Pritt. We already know that she is just too progressive for you. I was asking about another candidate- Cecil Underwood in the case I cite- giving or not giving his blessing to those Republican Committee ads.

As there was no way I was going to support Charlotte Pritt, not because she was progressive but because she was a liar, no I did not pay attention to the campaign in 1996. I had better things to do that year, notably recover from injuries from 800 lbs of steel cages falling on me.

But I'll read into it.

With the Obama situation they have taken over the DNC and are directly and actively involved in day to day ops. So he has less plausible deniability.

Well I am not trying to defend Obama here, on this one, Sherm.

I am just trying to point out, and as you indicate, that Republicans do not come into this with clean hands. Actually, they wrote the book on some of this stuff.

James Carville couldn't even hold a candle for Carl Rove.

So methinks that sometimes Republicans doth protest too much.

I have no idea about Cecil Underwood's knowledge Frank (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) but I'm under no illusion that it is only democrats that sponsor ads like this. I am quite sure Republicans do the exact same thing.

For the Sake of the Children, I would say they definately do.

The only question I would have is do independents like myself partake of this type of campaigning or is it just you democrats and the Republicans Frank?

Well I appreciate your candor on that, Aaron.

Btw, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

And I acknowledge that you aren't either.

Just like I dont think my country should torture prisoners just because others do, I dont think my Party should use sleazeball tactics just because others do.

OK, I have a question. I presume we're talking dirty politics here, attack ad's and such. My question is, if the accusations are true, is it 'sleazeball' politics?

Take the Charlotte Pritt ad for instance. If the legislation she voted for could REASONABLY result in 1st graders being taught about sex and/or condoms (and I have no idea if it did or didn't), is bringing that forth sleazeball?

What is torture Sherm and as a former WVSP, did you ever engage in it when questioning a suspect?