Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Disclaimer: In no way is this meant to insult the man that is John McCain. This is simply a critique of that man's fitness for office.

It's a well known fact that McCain was a victim of torture; suffering horrifically for 5.5 years. What's worrying about this is that, according to some studies, a little over 75% of torture victims suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. A disability which afflicts the sufferer with chronic depression and bouts of extreme paranoia.

Most people think that the reticence to release McCain's medical records is connected to his bout with cancer. I'm not so sure.

Obama released one page. McCain released books' worth on this issue when it first came up.

You could make the same argument that Obama's past drug use has chemically damaged his brain permanently. I am not making that argument, but it has the same validity.

Actually, my understanding is that ex-POWs tend to be pretty healthy guys. I've been to talks by several, and to a man they were gregarious, rambunctious, and open.

I'm not particularly worried about McCain's MENTAL health. His physical health, I would be.

But he's not winning, so who cares at this point.

Frazzled wrote:Obama released one page. McCain released books' worth on this issue when it first came up.

You could make the same argument that Obama's past drug use has chemically damaged his brain permanently. I am not making that argument, but it has the same validity.

The percentages aren't nearly so stacked against Obama on the drug use issue. Keep in mind I'm not offering this as campaign fodder. Obama could never raise this issue with any success.

dienekes96 wrote:Actually, my understanding is that ex-POWs tend to be pretty healthy guys. I've been to talks by several, and to a man they were gregarious, rambunctious, and open.

I'm not particularly worried about McCain's MENTAL health. His physical health, I would be.

But he's not winning, so who cares at this point.

Of course those POWs who give talks put themselves in a self-selected population which would defy odds. Arguably McCain is in a similar position via his political career; though the combination of the weight of his family name and the political edifice itself help to mitigate such a claim.

I find this whole line of reasoning to be as about as considered as constantly pointing out the Obama's middle name is Hussein or Obama and Usama sound alike. It's never been much of an issue in his political life until now and I'm hearing this DailyKos talking point a lot more in the last few days. It's a non-issue and a non-starter.

A) McCain was tortured for about two years*. Which is still godawful, but not quite the same as five and a half.

B) McCain released a ton of material- to a limited audience of reporters, for a three hour period, with no copies allowed to be made. With the restrictions that were in place, it wasn't exactly super informative.

Ahtman- We're may be hearing about it more in the last few days in part because of the pretty damning new Tim Dickinson article in Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1


*(until around when Ho Chi Minh died in Sept 1969, when it became more politically expedient for the Vietnamese to treat the captives better)

Beats the one page blurb from obama. But I agree with Ahtman, I find the whole line of thought offensive.

It's a complete non-sequitur. Just because it's statistically likely doesn't make it so. We all play games with dice, we should know this better than anyone.

That Rolling Stone article is character assassination, pure and simple. For example, the author knows very little about military operations and casualties (the reason McCain THE PILOT ran from his burning plane is the same reason the young kids (FIREFIGHTING TRAINED SAILORS) ran to it. That is what they were BOTH SUPPOSED TO DO.

If you think FoxNews is biased, RS ran a cover a few months back of Obama, and he looked positiviely ANGELIC. They gave him the same glow Berry Gordy gave Bruce Leroy.

What bothers me the most about this entire campaign is just this. McCain is a great man and a great American. He's not perfect, and he certainly has character flaws. But when the rubber met the road, he did not buckle. Watching the DNC (running a campaign slightly better than the RNC, but slightly worse than Kim Jong Il) work this issue from the edges (because a frontal attack would be suicide) is disgusting. Now whether or not McCain should be the president is completely irrelevant to his heroism.

As for the Rolling Stone article: Reading it is akin to listening to nasty gossip by a middle-schooler. Anecdotal to such a degree even RS should be ashamed to run it. It's no better than "Obama is a Muslim".

Ahtman wrote:I find this whole line of reasoning to be as about as considered as constantly pointing out the Obama's middle name is Hussein or Obama and Usama sound alike. It's never been much of an issue in his political life until now and I'm hearing this DailyKos talking point a lot more in the last few days. It's a non-issue and a non-starter.

Really? Because to me strong statistical correlation is not a hallmark of the whole Hussein/Obama/Usama=Terrorist line of reasoning. In any case, the revelation that McCain suffered from PTSD for at least part of his life would not surprise me, nor would it disqualify him from the Presidency. Nixon was a paranoid narcissist, and that very trait likely made him the most effective FP President in American history. But it certainly contextualizes McCain's unusually adversarial political reputation. Making it at least something of an issue in his political life.

Frazzled wrote:Beats the one page blurb from obama. But I agree with Ahtman, I find the whole line of thought offensive.

As an honest question; why?

I know vets, they are generally good people. Boil the line of questioning down to what the argument really is, is should vets be allowed to serve? Its insulting to my father, uncle, most of the males in my family, and everyone who served. Most of the guys are people you, me, and anyone else who didn't serve aren't worthy to tie their shoes.

Are the Democrats really putting this out?

dienekes96 wrote:That Rolling Stone article is character assassination, pure and simple. For example, the author knows very little about military operations and casualties (the reason McCain THE PILOT ran from his burning plane is the same reason the young kids (FIREFIGHTING TRAINED SAILORS) ran to it. That is what they were BOTH SUPPOSED TO DO.

Agreed.

dienekes96 wrote:
What bothers me the most about this entire campaign is just this. McCain is a great man and a great American. He's not perfect, and he certainly has character flaws. But when the rubber met the road, he did not buckle. Watching the DNC (running a campaign slightly better than the RNC, but slightly worse than Kim Jong Il) work this issue from the edges (because a frontal attack would be suicide) is disgusting. Now whether or not McCain should be the president is completely irrelevant to his heroism.

Unless heroism, and military experience, are presented as central components in his bid for Presidency.

Frazzled wrote:I know vets, they are generally good people. Boil the line of questioning down to what the argument really is, is should vets be allowed to serve? Its insulting to my father, uncle, most of the males in my family, and everyone who served. Most of the guys are people you, me, and anyone else who didn't serve aren't worthy to tie their shoes.

Are the Democrats really putting this out?

But it remains valid to question the real relevance military service has in translation to public office. No one, no matter their history, should be elevated above scrutiny. Questions of Obama's heritage are just as relevant to matters at hand. It is only low rates of correlation to any damning characteristic which render them fruitless.

I don't see how the possibility of PTSD is really an issue in this election.

McCain's overall age and general health certainly is, especially since he's had more than one melanoma, stands a good chance of dying in office according to actuarial tables, and has an incredibly green running mate.

Surely there is a difference between deciding whether a veteran or someone suffering from damage due to torture is fit or even capable of serving ?

I'll add quickly that given McCain has had a fairly active political career for a good while so it strikes me that any serious problems would have shown up already by now surely.

Sure he's old and makes the odd awkward slip of the tongue but like said earlier it's more his physical health that's got to be a concern.

He's a politician and he wants to be in charge ; therefore we already know he's not right in the head.

.... he's a hero ? Really ? Wasn't his career kind of.. well... less than successful ?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I know vets, they are generally good people. Boil the line of questioning down to what the argument really is, is should vets be allowed to serve? Its insulting to my father, uncle, most of the males in my family, and everyone who served. Most of the guys are people you, me, and anyone else who didn't serve aren't worthy to tie their shoes.

Are the Democrats really putting this out?

But it remains valid to question the real relevance military service has in translation to public office. No one, no matter their history, should be elevated above scrutiny. Questions of Obama's heritage are just as relevant to matters at hand. It is only low rates of correlation to any damning characteristic which render them fruitless.

No one is above scrutiny. However, the scrutiny has to be valid. Both this and question about Obama's "heritage" are:
1) superfluous. If this were an issue it would have come up in McCain's 8 billion years of service in the Senate. Same for Obama's public service.
2) not relevant. See above for McCain. Obama's heritage is not relevant as, once its proven he's a natural born citizen of the US, THATS IT. Nothing else pertains to the qualification of the Presidency.
3) Insulting
4) Beneath contempt
5) Shows low character by the questioner
6) By extension insults the greatness of the USA, that some scumsucking dustbunny (TM) would dare to ask such a thing of these candidates. People who ask these sorts of questions shouldn't be allowed to breed, as their genetic malformities may spread through the larger populace.
7) Ask questions about policy, their previous decisions, who they associate with and would use in their counsel, who gives them money. This is not relevant, insulting, and just plain stupid. No wonder people get turned off voting.

Where do you draw the line though?

If, for example, McCain suffered from a disease that could cause extreme fatigue and personality disorders...would that sway your vote?

gorgon wrote:I don't see how the possibility of PTSD is really an issue in this election.

McCain's overall age and general health certainly is, especially since he's had more than one melanoma, stands a good chance of dying in office according to actuarial tables, and has an incredibly green running mate.

Agreed on both your points.

Just saying John McCain was a POW over three decades ago has nothing to do with a statistical correlation to anything relating to his run for the presidency, other than it is tied to his opponents not wanting him to win the Presidency. It's not even a "strong" statistical chance. It's not like he just popped out of hiding yesterday, he's been a public man for decades and held political office for decades and has there ever been a PTSD incident that made him betray his state or country in any way? No.

This is the kind of bull that will push independent voters away from Obama. I've already said I'm probably going to vote for Obama but the one thing I've found that annoys me the most are Obama supporters. I can enjoy anime but then I run into otaku gaggle and they really turn me off of it and this is the same.

Hey Chuck, while I agree that the RS article is really harsh, can you falsify any of the statements made on the final page?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/10

This page is almost exclusively about his policy flip flops.

Choices make you a hero, not successes. I don't claim he is a great pilot, nor a war hero.

And I absolutely acknowledge that he has a volcanic temperament. I think the guy might be an a**hole, honestly.

dogma, that postulation (heroism = leadership) is being made by the RNC campaign, which I can't show any more contempt for than I already have. I believe heroism = character. Character impacts leadership. Different mathematical signs approximately different relationship and all that crap.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Where do you draw the line though?

If, for example, McCain suffered from a disease that could cause extreme fatigue and personality disorders...would that sway your vote?

Thats a medical condition. As Ahtman has noted there's no correlation here.

Just as there's no correlation Obama's middle name means he might be a terrorist. They are both stupid trains of thought.

Mannahnin wrote:Hey Chuck, while I agree that the RS article is really harsh, can you falsify any of the statements made on the final page?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/10

This page is almost exclusively about his policy flip flops.

It's not that it is harsh. It's that its entirely anecdotal. It is every bad thing he has every possibly done, related to the author (who clearly has his own biases) in as negative a fashion possible by people with an axe to grind.

As for the last page, I'll look at it. Probably not, and I could do the same thing to Biden. When you have a record, it bites you in the ass. That is why the last Senator to win the White House was Kennedy 48 years ago. Obama has no real record, so he gets to be whatever voters want.

Frazzled wrote:
No one is above scrutiny. However, the scrutiny has to be valid.

Scrutiny is always valid. Especially so when it is for a position as all-consuming as the Presidency.

Frazzled wrote: Both this and question about Obama's "heritage" are:
1) superfluous. If this were an issue it would have come up in McCain's 8 billion years of service in the Senate. Same for Obama's public service.

That's a tenuous assumption given the difference in necessary qualifications.

Frazzled wrote:
3) Insulting
4) Beneath contempt
5) Shows low character by the questioner
6) By extension insults the greatness of the USA, that some scumsucking dustbunny (TM) would dare to ask such a thing of these candidates. People who ask these sorts of questions shouldn't be allowed to breed, as their genetic malformities may spread through the larger populace.
7) Ask questions about policy, their previous decisions, who they associate with and would use in their counsel, who gives them money. This is not relevant, insulting, and just plain stupid. No wonder people get turned off voting.

All of this elevates people above scrutiny.

Ahtman wrote:Just saying John McCain was a POW over three decades ago has nothing to do with a statistical correlation to anything relating to his run for the presidency, other than it is tied to his opponents not wanting him to win the Presidency. It's not even a "strong" statistical chance. It's not like he just popped out of hiding yesterday, he's been a public man for decades and held political office for decades and has there ever been a PTSD incident that made him betray his state or country in any way? No.

I'm not making a case that the man is insane. PTSD frequently manifests itself in subtle ways that strengthen certain elements of the sufferers personality. Certain elements that might cause an already impulsive man, by training, to become even more so.

Ahtman wrote:
This is the kind of bull that will push independent voters away from Obama. I've already said I'm probably going to vote for Obama but the one thing I've found that annoys me the most are Obama supporters. I can enjoy anime but then I run into otaku gaggle and they really turn me off of it and this is the same.

It certainly will. People don't like having their assumptions of heroism questioned in real life.

Frazzled wrote:

Thats a medical condition. As Ahtman has noted there's no correlation here.

Just as there's no correlation Obama's middle name means he might be a terrorist. They are both stupid trains of thought.

The distinction between medical and psychological is growing more transparent by the day.

The article would be a hell of a lot better if it was sourced and footnoted. There are, OTOH, a substantial number of quotes from people who served with him and GOP members, not just enemies.

I completely agree that any long-serving Senator is vulnerable to being called out on inconsistencies on their voting record. It's just tough to be very sympathetic to McCain on it when I watch him talking up the consistency of his record, then compare (for example) his recent statements about regulation and government intervention with his earlier statements.

As an aside, the temper thing is apparently more serious than I thought. Saying "F*** you" to a fellow Republican in the middle of a Senate discussion on immigration last year is pretty out there.

Mannahnin wrote:

As an aside, the temper thing is apparently more serious than I thought. Saying "F*** you" to a fellow Republican in the middle of a Senate discussion on immigration last year is pretty out there.

You say that like its a bad thing Manny.

dogma wrote:I'm not making a case that the man is insane. PTSD frequently manifests itself in subtle ways that strengthen certain elements of the sufferers personality. Certain elements that might cause an already impulsive man, by training, to become even more so.

Please point out where I used the word insane in this thread.

Ahtman wrote:It certainly will. People don't like having their assumptions of heroism questioned in real life.

Please point out where I called McCain a hero in this thread.

What I can do for my part is point out your smug sense of self-righteousness that makes you think that you understand "the people". At the same time you let others convince what to think. You can rag on Hannity, Coultier, and Limbaugh but you take your talking points from DailyKos, Michael Moore, and Rolling Stone. Come up with your own thoughts instead of parroting others and then maybe you can tell us all about how you "know" the people.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

As an aside, the temper thing is apparently more serious than I thought. Saying "F*** you" to a fellow Republican in the middle of a Senate discussion on immigration last year is pretty out there.

You say that like its a bad thing Manny.

We'll never know the full context of why it was said but there were a lot of people that liked that he said it on both sides. An honest moment for once.

Mannahnin wrote:A) McCain was tortured for about two years*. Which is still godawful, but not quite the same as five and a half.

B) McCain released a ton of material- to a limited audience of reporters, for a three hour period, with no copies allowed to be made. With the restrictions that were in place, it wasn't exactly super informative.

Ahtman- We're may be hearing about it more in the last few days in part because of the pretty damning new Tim Dickinson article in Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1


*(until around when Ho Chi Minh died in Sept 1969, when it became more politically expedient for the Vietnamese to treat the captives better)

Did Clinton ever release his medical records? I remember Kerry squealing like a pig when they asked for his. Were you waving banners of faux outrage then? I would think not.