PeterDavid.net

Do we get to see him pull McCain's mask off beforehand?

Or is that what you're suggesting there? :-)

I really wish Obama could rip a strip off McCain - but no matter how nasty McCain is, you know they'll go after Obama if he does it. Unfair, but this whole election process has been a mess.

Interesting that people are focussing on the content, ad not on the delivery.

Dating back to the Nixon/Kennedy debates, external appearances also factor in.

I disagree, PAD. And I believe the undecided polls on CNN also disagree. Obama wasn't expected to win the foreign policy debate, because he simply doesn't have the experience and credentials that McCain has. The fact that Obama basically brought the debate in as a tie, when he was supposed to lose, equals a victory in the long run.

Actually, I feel the debate was a tie. If I was pushed to pick a winner by a nose, I would say Obama. Why? Because he looked into the camera, looked a bit Presidential and basically held his own on McCain's turf.
All in all, don't feel it pushed anybody who was leaning one way or the other, but for those who were more unfamiliar with Obama, it may have benefited him.

Obama in a squeaker. McCain was first off the line trying to attack Obama's Senate record, and it didn't take long for him to utter "Liberal" as a criticism. Obama did at least offer some positive comments on McCain's history in the Senate regarding his opposition to torture.

He was in the arena that plays to McCain's strength. When the debates go over to the economy, Obama has to force McCain to stay there, and remind people of McCain's history of supporting bank derregulation and where it lead.

If he plays the hypocrisy card, it may backfire. Let Biden put Palin's weaknesses on full display, while Obama picks at McCain.

By the way, if we are to treat McCain as a Scooby Doo villain, who goes "Rooby Dooby Dooo!!!" ;)

Obama came off cool, calm, and collected; by contrast, McCain couldn't even begin to convince that he wasn't really Dr. Evil.

One has to understand that many voters simply DON'T focus on the issues, and zoom in on personality, and how candidates perform under pressure. And on several occasions, McCain looked weak and like a discarded relic of history. His rattling off of old war tales and references to Reagan may have appealed to nostalgia; and frankly, I was rather surprised that Obama let him off easy on veterans issues. But the very fact that McCain couldn't look his opponent in the eyes already says volumes.

By the way, the LAST thing Obama should do is accuse McCain of being hypocritical. He's playing this game just right by letting McCain HANG HIMSELF with repeated stump rhetoric that has already been disproven.

Now if Obama wants to subtly take a jab at Palin, he should merely zero in on McCain's OWN RECORD of ignoring women's issues. But Obama shouldn't make the mistake of elevating Palin to his level.

I love the analogy to the Scooby Doo villain, now I won’t be able to get that out of my head! (LOL)

I also have to note how Obama was willing to concede there was common ground between the two men and there were moments when his opponent was right but for McCain it was a zero sum game.

It seems slightly ironic that the candidate who professes the nation must come together (McCain) and work across parties lines showed absolutely no give at all.

I think Obama won this one.

Re: Experience. This is a non starter.

All McCain would have to say is yes, she is not as experienced as me that is why she is the Vice PResident, you are running for the top job.

This debate was not one-sided by any means, but there are a few things I would have liked to have seen Obama do differently too.

Far too many voters care about superficial stuff. Like whether Nixon was sweating, or whether Gore was sighing in exasperation. Knowing that, I wonder whether Obama's occasional tendency to repeat words after starting to speak ("I--I..." or "and--and" for example) might hurt him. When he gets going he's a good speaker, but sometimes he'll start off shakily.

The other thing is that since McCain has played the bully in this little movie, I want people to stand up to him. Last night displayed more assholish behaviour on his part, with him continuing to talk about Obama in the third person even though the format called for the candidates to talk to one another and Obama did address McCain directly. McCain simply refused to acknowledge him or even look at him, and talked about him as though he weren't there.

Ignoring his opponent is one thing, and it would be something that would've pissed me off if I were in Obama's shoes.

(I might have said "Hey, John! Are you afraid to talk to me? I'm right here!" But maybe McCain wanted to goad him into just such an outburst, and that may have made him look too angry, so maybe it's best that he didn't.)

But it's another thing to interrupt your opponent, and last night McCain talked over Obama several times, even interrupting him. Now, if somebody tries to talk over me and drown me out when I am speaking, I don't stand for it. I speak even louder. If they continue, I will say "Excuse me, I'm talking here. You're interrupting. Be quiet and let me finish, then you'll get your turn." And I'll say it loudly.

Obama more often than not stopped talking and allowed McCain to go on, before responding.

Now maybe that's the smartest thing. Maybe getting into a "who can drown out the other guy" contest would've accomplished nothing, or even hurt. Maybe my personal policy of not allowing myself to be drowned out or interrupted would ensure I failed miserably if I ever tried to get into politics.

But I'm afraid that the sorts of voters (oh hell let's call them by their proper name: stupid people) will believe Obama was backing down from McCain, and they'll think that makes him weak.

On the plus side, I don't believe Obama ever looked like a raw rookie. He didn't appear to be lost for words at any time, McCain's condescension and insults didn't throw him off, and while Obama never really said anything to give McCain and opening Obama exploited several openings given to him by McCain. Openings like these:

--when McCain said it was unwise to threaten nations and Obama pointed out that he'd sung about bombing Iran and whatever he'd said about extinction and North Korea.

--when Obama pointed out that McCain's own advisor, Kissinger, was on record as saying the U.S. should talk to Iran without preconditions.

--when McCain suggested a spending freeze on everything but defense and vetereans, which Obama accurately described as being excessive and using a hatchet when a scalpel was needed.

I feel better about Obama's performance here than you do, PAD, but I agree that he needs to be running the table rather than waiting until he's dealt a winning hand.

Polls show that McCain's on the ropes, and based on everything I've read about McCain the key to beating him IS to get him to blow up. Obama needs to push his buttons, but do so in such a way that it does not appear to viewers as if he's sinking to McCain's level and throwing around insults. A couple reasons. One, of course, is that if the CNN focus group was any indication, undecided voters are turned off by attacks and negativity. The other is that while McCain might look like a hothead if he exploded in response to some sort of attack or challenge by Obama, he would look even WORSE if he exploded after a comment from Obama that appeared to be innocent and inoffensive. People would be like "why the hell is he so angry? Obama didn't say anything! Wow, this guy's crazy..."

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I don't know whether acknowledging McCain has been right about anything is a great idea.

Yes, it does make Obama look like the classier guy. It makes him look a helluva lot more like guy who will REALLY reach across party lines instead of just alienating the other side.

But on the other hand there's the question of what the stupid voters are going to think if they see one guy saying "my opponent is right about this, but..." and the other guy saying "my is wrong and doesn't understand what he's talking about" etc. For the stupid voters, if you acknowledge the other guy is right about anything, they might go and vote for the other guy. You know, because "he's right about things! Even the guy he's running against says so!"

Women in Ohio are reporting Obama won them 2-1. If that carries through with the rest of the midwest, I think it's hard to say Obama didn't win.

The polls are saying Obama won, but not by much. But the polls also say that more Democrats than Republicans watched the debate (and I wonder what THAT says about Democrats and Republicans).

Another interesting tidbit in the polls is that Obama appealed a lot more to women. Converselly, the men prefered McCain, by a narrow margin. Inexperience aside, it seems like McCain was smart when he picked Palin. Seems like women just aren't impressed by McCain.

But the polls also say that more Democrats than Republicans watched the debate (and I wonder what THAT says about Democrats and Republicans).

What's the matter, they didn't want to see their guy talk? Guess they didn't have faith that he'd do well, which begs the question of why the fuck they are supporting him.

Yeah, my preference would be that from here on out, the Democrats never even SAY Palin's name, unless directly asked. We (the Dems) should have shut up and just let her hang herself from the start. Instead, we played right into the Republican's trap on this. Bad enough that any nasty internet comments were put at the campaign's door, but a Dem congresswoman says that Palin's only qualification is that she chose not to have an abortion - that sort of thing just plays into the Republican's argument that the Dems are sexist.

And the more that we argue about Palin's inexperience, the more the Republicans get to argue about Obama's inexperience. Doesn't matter if our points make more logical sense. A lot of people seem to follow the BS that any executive experience trumps legislative experience. Next time, McCain brings up experience, I think Obama should say, "You're right, John. You've got [however many] more years experience than me as a legislator. George W. Bush and his administration had [however many] years of executive experience between them. The last 8 years have been the result of that experience. And in spite of all that experience that you have over me, you STILL voted with this administration 90% of the time. You'd think with all that experience, we wouldn't be in this situation. That's why I continue to emphasize judgement."

I do like PAD's idea of Obama turning around, and calmly smiling, saying, "John, here's something that YOU don't understand..." If nothing else, that should get a laugh from viewers, and show that Obama has a sense of humor.

As far as getting McCain to "Hulk out" (well, this IS PAD's site) during the debate - I know everybody loves the idea, but I just can't see it happening. Yes, the man has a temper, but he's not stupid. He knows to rein it in during certain times, otherwise, he would have been out of office a long time ago. I mean, has he ever actually been caught on video losing his temper? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing not.

Another depressing thought is that even if McCain actually went off and punched Obama in the face, there's many people in the country who would cheer. They'd say - That's showing that self-rightous (fill-in acceptable euphamism here).

As for who won the debate, I'm glad that the polls seem to show Obama with the edge, but if I had to choose (other than a tie), I would have thought McCain did better. But, that's probably just the pessimist in me. Well, I hope.

But the polls also say that more Democrats than Republicans watched the debate (and I wonder what THAT says about Democrats and Republicans).

Well, depending on the margin, that could be related to the fact that there simply are more Democrats than Republicans. Hasn't Dem party ID been about 8 points higher than GOP party ID this cycle? Republicans caught up on that score during the early/middle Bush years, but it evaporated prior to the 2006 midterm elections and only gotten worse.

PAD: By saying something like, "Senator, with respect, I think we both know that if your choice for vice president were the Democratic candidate for President, you would be standing here shredding her on her lack of experience, her lack of preparedness, and that the presidency shouldn't require on-the-job training. How dare you stand there and flaunt such thunderous hypocrisy, that you would hold me to a standard that you don't hold your own possible successor to. You have forever tossed away the right to play the experience card as you have repeatedly done with me tonight, and I think you owe an apology to the American people for such dishonorable behavior."

Yeah, that would go over like a cement balloon. Obama is going to attack McCain by pointing out that McCain's VP pick has very little experience while equating himself to her. Now I know that's not quite what you said, but that's how it will come off and that's how it will be played up for weeks afterward. You're advocating that Obama bring up one of the biggest negatives people have had about him and, rather than deny it or defend against it, chastise McCain for praising the woefully under qualified Palin while attacking Obama's less than stellar qualifications.

People who aren't already in the Obama camp will remember three things.

(1) Obama said that Palin wasn't qualified.

(2) Obama said that McCain was being a hypocrite for praising Palin while attacking Obama for not being qualified for the job.

(3) Obama admitted that, like Palin, he isn't really qualified for the job.

PAD in THE DEBATE: Running log: 10:10: Mistake. Never mention negative things that opposition have said about you. All people remember is "Obama=Naive."

It was an accurate observation then and it's an accurate observation, especially if McCain doesn't blow a fuse over it, for Obama supporters and advisors to remember here. All people will remember is "Obama=Under Qualified for the Job."

Another depressing thought is that even if McCain actually went off and punched Obama in the face, there's many people in the country who would cheer. They'd say - That's showing that self-rightous (fill-in acceptable euphamism here).

I wanted to see Kerry do that to Bush in 2004, so I understand the desire to cheer.

When somebody's a big enough jerk, you want to see them get punched. It's just human nature.

I know we're talking extremely improbable hypotheticals here but I'll just point this out anyway: McCain couldn't possibly punch Obama in the face if he happened to get the urge. In addition to being very old, McCain can't lift his arms very high. Couple that with the height difference and I doubt he could tag Obama much higher than the beltline. If he were fast enough to land a punch. Which he is certainly not.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I don't know whether acknowledging McCain has been right about anything is a great idea.

ABSOLUTELY the right thing.

Because Obama followed it up by saying, "BUT....here's where John's solutions are wrong"

A) It showed who's more bipartisan.

B) It ACCENTUATED their differences.

For undecideds, those are big wins.

It's simple. He just needs to address the audience and say, in a polite, concerned tone: "Don't you think John looks tired?" ; p

OK, now if Obama made a comment like that?

Then I WOULD cheer McCain for punching him.

Jeez. ;)

I agree that treating McCain with respect for his accomplishments, then pointing out his areas of weakness is the right way to go.

I love how McCain says " we must never torture again .. " which does publicly admit to the current administration DOING IT or sanctioning it.

ABSOLUTELY the right thing.

I guess we'll know soon enough, since the McCain campaign has already released another attack ad. This one has got footage of Obama repeatedly saying McCain is right.

So we'll see whether that's effective or not.

Well, one can always hope that intelligent people (Yeah, I know...) will realize the context in which those things were said, and recognize that Obama is a mature guy who knows how to see the positives, even in his opponents. I mean, God forbid he should treat McCain with any respect....

Well, to be precise, here are Obama's agreements with McCain:

“Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis. ” *** “Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up. And he’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn’t the case with me.

But let’s be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year’s budget.”

***
“Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right. Here’s the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.”
***
“But let’s get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.
They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.”

***
And, John, I—you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don’t know, you know, how credible that is.

Someone was pointing out that agreeing with the opponent stops the discussion RIGHT THERE and allows the agreer to move on to another ground and maintain the initiative.

I mean, God forbid he should treat McCain with any respect....

However undeserved that respect is. I mean seriously, how much respect does somebody who constantly attacks and belittles you deserve? Somebody who keeps it up even when you're trying to be civil towards him, as Obama was last night?

Roger, thanks for posting the relevant portions of the transcript.

Unfortunately, the McCain ad doesn't show all of that. Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCLyVK3U2IU

Even better than pissing off Grampa so bad he tries to punch Herman Munster 2.0?

Pissing McCain off so much he has a heart attack right there on camera in front of the country.

I can picture the ad ...

"This man wants to be president. This man got so angry at another man who was only competing with him for a job, he had a heart attack. Do we want this guy in charge of defending the US from Terrorists? How would he react to an attack on the US?" Insert video of some random faceless person taking a golf swing... "For the sake of John McCain's health, vote Obama!"

Rob Brown: "However undeserved that respect is. I mean seriously, how much respect does somebody who constantly attacks and belittles you deserve?"

McCain deserves respect for his service to his country, for enduring years of imprisonment and torture, and for his distinguished career in the U.S. Senate. Obama is smart enough and mature enough to understand that, thank goodness.

As for McCain's belittling and the personal attacks, both Obama and McCain have taken cheap shots at each other throughout this campaign. McCain has been somewhat more egregious than Obama in this regard, but neither of them has cause to play the wounded party.

I'm an Obama supporter and I may be biased, but I give a slight edge to Obama for having kept his cool moreso than McCain. McCain didn't disgrace himself, but his behavior fell a bit short of what I consider presidential. He came off as someone with something to prove.

Obama has been taking cheap shots at McCain throughout this campaign? The same Obama Bill Mulligan has been praising as a class act all along? What are you referring to that he's missed out on?

We (the Dems) should have shut up...

I guess you have no choice except to tell us your affiliation, since your fabricating opportunities to criticize Obama might lead others to the opposite conclusion.

BILL MYERS: McCain deserves respect for his service to his country, for enduring years of imprisonment and torture, and for his distinguished career in the U.S. Senate. Obama is smart enough and mature enough to understand that, thank goodness.

Bill, allow me to copy and paste part of one of my recent posts on Gail Simones forum at CBR, "You'll All Be Sorry", in response to that:

ME: Just once....JUST ONCE....I want to see somebody whom [McCain] has wronged say to him "Listen man, I don't CARE about what happened to you in Vietnam any more. I wouldn't wish what you went through on anybody, but you know what? Being tortured does not entitle you to act like a prick your whole life without anybody calling you on it! Let me tell you, 'my friend', you're being a prick. Either stop it or just retire, because we've all had it with you."

Lots of people "served their country." It doesn't make them better than the rest of us, and it doesn't mean they can get away with shit the rest of us can't.

Obama keeping his cool may have paid off.

Great news for the Obama camp: the undecided think he won the debate, and better yet, the undecided voters think he looked more capable of ruling the country than McCain.

Obama has a lead, and it's probable that McCain will keep bleeding due to the finantial crisis. Another poll said a huge number of people believe Obama will prioritize the average citizen's interests, while McCain will protect the corporations (that one was so big that it seems even Conservatives believe McCain will prioritize corporations).Republicans

And it looks like McCain is losing any mommentuum he gained from Palin's indication.

I'm now cautiously optimistic that Obama will win.

"I guess you have no choice except to tell us your affiliation, since your fabricating opportunities to criticize Obama might lead others to the opposite conclusion." (Can't figure out how to do quotes, here)

OK, I don't really get what I said that was critical of Obama. I want Obama to win so much, that I don't want a bad move on the Democrat side to backfire on us. Obama has been trying fairly hard to take the high road. Unfortunately, not everybody on his side is always of the same mind.

Rob Brown: "Lots of people 'served their country.' It doesn't make them better than the rest of us, and it doesn't mean they can get away with shit the rest of us can't."

I never said otherwise. I've criticized McCain, and I'm not going to vote for him. But that doesn't mean he is wholly undeserving of respect.

Also, why did you put 'served their country' in quotes?

Rob Brown: "Being tortured does not entitle you to act like a prick your whole life without anybody calling you on it!"

I disagree with McCain on just about all of the key issues in this election, but I nevertheless do not feel he has acted "like a prick" his "whole life." There are some votes he's made in the U.S. Senate with which I disagree. But I have to give him credit for championing campaign reform, even if McCain-Feingold wasn't exactly a successful law.

Rene: "Obama keeping his cool may have paid off."

Yeah, I thought it would. Independent voters will decide this election, and unlike partisans, independents tend to be turned off by negative campaigning.

I thought McCain's snide grin and his snippy, condescending tone served him poorly during the debate. Although in terms of substance, I'd give Obama only a slight edge. For example, neither candidate was willing to take a stand one way or another on the Paulson plan, which is disappointing consdering just how staggeringly important this issue is. We're facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and both candidates declined to take a stance on the solution being negotiated.

I want Obama to win so much, that I don't want a bad move on the Democrat side to backfire on us.

Yeah, the US now officially has its first democrat who prefers saying "democrat side" over "democratic side." Thank you, I don't know how the country ever got along without you.

I don't know who was watching what, but CNN had a running graph of some focus group reactions in real time. Virtually anytime either of them went negative, the reactions tended downward from the independents. I think, honestly, looking solely at that graph, it's why McCain just barely lost the debate.

Given that, I honestly don't think a flat out attack on McCain's character is the best way to go. At the very least, it's hugely risky. If you get lucky, McCain freaks out in a very public way and everyone forgets that you were being an insulting d-bag (because that's how it'll look, regardless of the truth value.) If not, Obama blows the exact friendly, approachable guy/grouchy grandpa dichotomy that the tactic (har!) seeks to exploit.

lorinheller,

I don’t know how often or how long you’ve read the various threads on this site, but I don’t recall seeing your name on too many posts before. That being the case; I’ll assume you’re relatively new, be nice and give you a really useful bit of advice.

Don’t get sucked down the rabbit hole you’re in danger of going down. There’s a reason that, despite how hard he tries and how antagonistic he is about it, no one here who has been here any length of time bothers to respond to Mike any more. He’s the site’s pet troll and official brick wall. He’s opening up an argument with you that makes no logical sense and, if pursued by you further, will simply get less and less rational with each of his posts.

There are lots of reasonable, rational and fun people here to chat with or debate. Mike isn’t one of them. Save yourself the headache and just ignore his attempts to pick an argument with you.

1
"Yeah, the US now officially has its first democrat who prefers saying "democrat side" over "democratic side." Thank you, I don't know how the country ever got along without you."

Well, I'm sure the country WOULD get along fine without me, actually. I never said it wouldn't. Democrat. Democratic. I'm not delibererately wording things to offend here. But with everything I say, you seem to be taking more offense.

To Jerry Chandler,

Thanks man. That makes me feel a lot better.

I posted my last comment to Mike before I read what you had to say, otherwise I would have taken your advice immediately. I will do so as of now.

Lorin

It’s an interesting balancing act, isn’t it? Obama can’t go negative because he’s built so much of his campaign crusading against that kind of politics, but he can’t simply let McCain lie about him either.

Obama can’t start busting on McCain in the manner that many of his supporters want him to because it will turn of many of the undecided and independent voters. It would also make it easier for his critics to paint him as just another Democrat who plays the same old political games. Obama could correct facts and get under McCain’s skin in a debate without taking the overly confrontational stance that’s been suggested by some here. It could still bother McCain to have so many of his facts corrected in a debate by Obama (who also needs to get a few facts cleared up for himself based on his own misstatements during the debate) and if McCain explodes, even just slightly, over something that mild he will look all the worse to many of his lukewarm supporters and independent/undecided voters.

It may not work. It may not reap the benefits of the aggressive stance suggested by PAD and others, but it is also the tactic that is less likely to backfire on him by turning off his lukewarm supporters and independent/undecided voters. It’s a bit of a problem of Obama’s own making. He has spoken against other opponents in the Democratic primaries and in the GOP as being the same old politics and the same old dirty players that the voters have grown tired of as a core part of the change he would bring about. He’s now locked into that ideal to a large degree.

If Obama sticks to that ideal, he makes it harder to pull ahead of McCain in many of the polls or to truly damage McCain. If he reverts to the political tactics of old, he becomes just another hypocritical politician who’ll say and do whatever he needs to win and abandons his principles when they become personally inconvenient.

Obama should ignore some of his supporters, remain true to what he’s claimed that he believes in and take the harder road to victory. If he loses, he’s still politically viable for other positions in his party and in other areas of political activism later. If he wins, he has a much stronger platform to command the respect of others and to claim the high road from in attempting to reach bipartisan agreements in vital policies down the road. It may mean jack-squat to the Republicans, but it may mean a world of difference to the voters he’ll need to support him in the future.

While PAD's idea about getting McCain to lose his temper is great in theory, I don't see it happening. I have no doubt McCain is very thoroughly prepped for each debate (as is Obama), and I'm sure the Republicans are doing all they can to make sure he keeps his cool. Plus McCain has years of experience debating in Congress, so it's unlikely he'd fall into any obvious traps.

In a weird way, the strength of the debate was that it does illustrate the great differences between the two candidates. In 2000 the Onion ran a pre-election article called "Bush or Gore is the New President" and went on basically predicting how interchangeable they would be. Ain't no one gonna confuse the positions of Obama and McCain. This one should come down to issues instead of personality. (Which is terrific: George W. Bush had a history of poor governing and failed businesses, but he won largely for being the candidate you'd want to share a beer with. The results were... poor.)

And kudos to Canuck Redux for the DOCTOR WHO quote. If it were only that easy...

BILL MYERS: I disagree with McCain on just about all of the key issues in this election, but I nevertheless do not feel he has acted "like a prick" his "whole life."

I admit that this was an exaggeration, as he didn't become really bad until the last few years. As far as we know anyway; obviously in order to get a complete picture of what the man's like you'd need to observe him either 24/7 or close to it. We only know what the cameras have shown us or what the reporters have written.

So I should have said "being tortured does not entitle you to repeatedly act like a prick without anybody calling you on it."

And it doesn't. There was some talk of what it would be like if a candidate literally punched another candidate in the face earlier in the thread. So I'll make it clear that I'm saying the following figuratively: McCain has been punching Obama in the face for quite some time now, and Obama should be hitting the bastard back as hard as he possibly can. Don't go easy on him because he was in Vietnam.

McCain has been somewhat more egregious than Obama in this regard, but neither of them has cause to play the wounded party.

McCain has been a LOT more egregious than Obama. He was the one who turned this campaign into a mudslinging contest. Not Obama.

In my book, when there is a conflict of any type then all blame lies with the person who started the conflict. That person is in the wrong. The person who fights back is merely defending himself or herself.

That's what Obama has been doing: fighting back. He certainly IS the wounded party here, even though I'm sure he would never ask for anybody's pity or "play the wounded party".

Also, why did you put 'served their country' in quotes?

When I wrote the post it was because I was semi-quoting you, as you had said he deserved respect for "service to his country".

Reflecting on it, though...I don't actually think anybody being in Vietnam helped the United States of America at all. So to describe what McCain did as somehow helping the United States, serving it, is inaccurate.

He was not serving the United States. He was serving the government. There is a substantial difference between the two. Ask Steve Rogers.

I want to make one thing clear: I do not look down on Vietnam veterans. I know that many of them are ordinary guys who got draft notices in the mail. I know that many others thought they were doing the right thing at the time, and later realized that the Vietnam war was pointless and wrong (John Kerry, for example). If I were capable of going back in time and interacting with them upon their return home, I would not single out a random soldier and call him a baby-killer and throw garbage at him or anything like that. That is because I would not know the man and I would not know what he had done.

However, I also would not single out a random soldier, run up to him, say "thank you so much! You're a hero!" and shake his hand enthusiastically. Again, that is because I would not know the man and I would not know what he had done.

I would treat them like anybody else. If I got to know somebody who was in Vietnam and they turned out to be a nice guy whom I agreed with a lot, I would treat them well. If they turned out to be a jerk with whom I disagreed a lot, I would not treat them so well. If they went so far as to say that the war was right and that I, as somebody who was not in the war, ought to treat them with deference and respect...then I would want to punch them in the face. Literally.

In summary: John McCain is being a jerk, and he should be dealt with the same as any other jerk. He does not deserve to be treated with kid gloves. So it frustrates me if Obama is reluctant to fight back against him too hard. It frustrates me that when he snubs Dave Letterman, Letterman actually feels the need to preface some of his criticism of McCain by saying that he has high regard the man and he's a true American hero and so forth.

What has he done lately? That's all that matters. What he's done lately has been utterly rotten. The level of respect he deserves should be determined by McCain's RECENT behaviour.

Let's say that I saved somebody from drowning five years ago. Let's say that, just last week, I got into an argument with the same person which turned violent, and I broke all of their bones with a baseball bat. Would I have any right to say to the person with all the broken bones "hey, don't press charges against me! You owe me, for saving your life! Five years ago!" I would have no such right. Because the only thing that matters in this hypothetical is what I have done lately.

"And it looks like McCain is losing any mommentum he gained from Palin's indication."

Palin's mystery has been wearing off, and with it, the main reason why people were originally fascinated with her. By the way, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler parodied the Couric interview on SNL last night. Fey even quoted some of Palin's responses this time, making the proceedings even more funny/scary.

We (the Dems) should have shut up...

I want Obama to win so much, that I don't want a bad move on the Democrat [sic] side to backfire on us.

There’s a reason that, despite how hard he tries and how antagonistic he is about it, no one here who has been here any length of time bothers to respond to Mike any more. He’s the site’s pet troll and official brick wall.

Yeah, it's a wonder Jerry can't cite anything I say to demonstrate his point.

Jerry's a southern strategist's wet dream.

If they went so far as to say that the war was right and that I, as somebody who was not in the war, ought to treat them with deference and respect...then I would want to punch them in the face. Literally.

To show your disapproval of political violence?

Seriously, I really hope you meant "figuratively" in lieu of "literally." Because there is never, ever an excuse for escalating a difference of views into violence.

Frankly I don't think there's ever a grounds for political violence in a democracy anyway. But think about what you just posited: someone offering a view of public service that offends you... and your response is violence? In the same post that you wrote, In my book, when there is a conflict of any type then all blame lies with the person who started the conflict. That person is in the wrong. By your own logic, if you did that, this nameless veteran with the opinion you disapprove of-- we'll call him "McLean"-- would be entitled to beat you to a bloody pulp. Because you started the conflict.

The responsible thing would be for McLean to call you dirty names and walk away with his dignity intact. That's what the posters here are suggesting Obama should do. Personally I haven't seen any McCain ads that have gone beyond the pale (negative, yes, and so much for that decorous campaign we were promised), but going from having ONE candidate who's giving factcheck.org conniptions to having TWO candidates giving factcheck.org conniptions is not an improvement. Turnabout is clearly not fair play in this instance.

Oh, and by the way. I do think that people who put themselves in harm's way for their nation deserve respect. It doesn't make them saints, and it doesn't mean their government sent them on good missions, but it does entitle them to a little respect for having done their duty. If you think you need to hit me now, drive on down to North Carolina. Call me when you get to Raleigh and I'll give you directions to my house.

It's interesting how 9/11 marked a definite change in how America see its soldiers. They went from mostly reviled to mostly cherised.

I think the soldiers deserve respect for all the hardship they've been through. Of course, this respect doesn't extend to agreeing with whatever crazy adventure the government sent the soldiers into. If anything, the soldiers are the greatest victims of their government's wrong decisions (as I believe the Iraq War was a wrong decision).

But the soldiers have a right to be proud of their service, even if they fought an unjust war. After all, the bravery demonstrated is the same in just or unjust wars. The only soldiers that I think don't deserve any respect are sadisctic ones that commited war crimes.

To Rene,

I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that after 9/11 soldiers went from being mostly reviled to mostly cherished.

I believe the change happened sooner, reflected in the 1980s with movies like Rambo and Platoon (the former highly fictionalized, the latter much less so). I recalled with surprise that the movie Rambo did as well as it did, getting cheers from the audience during the screening I attended. Quite a change from the 'baby-killer' epithets hurled during the previous decade (I never hurled those, by the bye). Media portrayals are not the worst yardstick of popular public perception.

I realize that what I say will be anecdotal, but I found the 'man on the street' attitude to be highly against the soldiers while the Vietnam war was going on, switching to a more sympathetic attitude in the late 1970s-early 1980s, to being very favorable by the time of the invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war under George H.W. Bush. I don't recall the soldiers being disrespected in the media at that time.

Your experiences may differ, but that's what I lived through.

And I'll agree with the rest of your post. Well said.

David:

If you are a lawyer, then I assume you know that there is a great difference between being tempted to commit a crime--in this case assault, which punching somebody is--and actually going through with it.

If you look at my post carefully, you will see that I said I would *want* to punch them. Not that I *would* punch them. We clear?

Let me also elaborate on why I would *want* to punch them. They would be saying "everything we did in Vietnam was right and justified." Which includes the killing of civilians, which I think is pretty damned evil. So that would start getting me angry. But that in itself would not be the reason I would want to punch them.

Then they would go on to say "I was there and you weren't! That makes me better than you! So you better treat me with the respect I'm due! What the hell have you ever done to deserve any respect?" That is condescending, and I do not appreciate somebody saying that their military service somehow makes them worth more than I am. That they, because they have killed people, deserve respect and I, because I have not killed people, deserve less respect or no respect.

So I would not be tempted to hit this guy because he disagreed with me politically. I already said what I would do with somebody who not only disagreed with me politically but was also a jerk: I said "...I would not treat them so well." Which does not, I repeat NOT, mean "I would physically attack them." I'm sorry for the repetition, I just want to make absolutely sure that you understand me, since you so clearly did not understand me the first time.

No, I would only want to hit somebody if he disagreed with me politically on something as serious as the Vietnam War AND went on to tell me that because of all he had done for me by being in that war (which would be nothing, even if I lived in the U.S.) he expected me to worship him like a hero and agree that everything he said was right.

Now maybe you'd be cool with somebody talking down to you like that. I wouldn't be.

And yes, if I actually did hit this McLean, then I would be initiating the violence, and he'd be justified in hitting me back.

I do think that people who put themselves in harm's way for their nation deserve respect.

Tell me something. Why is it only those in the military who are described as "serving their country"? Or "putting themselves in harm's way for their nation"?

Don't firefighters serve their country by preventing people in that country from burning to death?

Don't doctors serve their country by saving the lives of people in that country?

Don't police officers serve their country by stopping violent criminals from hurting or killing people in that country?

Don't firefighters, doctors, and police officers deserve as much--or more--respect for "serving their country" than those in the military? These are all people whose job involves improving things inside the borders of the United States, whereas the military is usually more concerned with attacking and killing people outside the borders of the United States.

But even as grateful as people were to firefighters, doctors, and police officers after 9/11, nobody ever said that they "served their country." At least not that I ever heard or read. Why is it only military personnel who are looked up to in this manner, who are so honored, when those people in the professions I've listed have arguably a much more beneficial effect?

Saving lives impresses me. Taking lives does not.

By the way, I notice that you said people who risk their lives for "their nation" deserve respect. Does that mean that you would respect Nazi soldiers? They were putting themselves in harm's way, and they were doing it for "their nation."

So would you respect Nazi soldiers as much as you respect American soldiers? Or would you say that the Nazi soldiers were fighting for an evil man, and thus were not deserving of respect?

And what if one of the Nazi soldiers, after the war, talked about how they had been doing the right thing? What if they told you that you SHOULD respect them, demanded you treat them with respect, because they had fought for their country? What would your response be? I'm curious.

I am not going to say that any American President has been as bad as Hitler. But there have been some pretty amoral ones, who sent their armed forces on amoral missions.

Sometimes violence IS the answer.

Sometimes it is, Alan. I just feel there are certain things that the good guys shouldn't do, such as torture.

I believe that firing the first shots in a war is one of those things. Mike Farrell's described it as "...our country’s historic opposition to a 'first strike'..." Good people ought to be opposed to that, to the initiation of lethal violence, rather than responding to it after somebody else has initiated it.

There's a collection of essays and speeches by Kurt Vonnegut I've got, called Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons. If anybody's read Cat's Cradle, you'll know what the words mean. If not, I'd recommend it. Or you can just look 'em up on Wikipedia.

Anyway, I found an excerpt from that book that I'd like to quote here, from a speech Vonnegut gave in 1973:

"Members of my generation in America had the illusion of being very, very good during the Second World War. This was because we were engaged in a just war. Most people never have that exhilarating experience. Almost every war ends, properly, with its veterans feeling deceived and pointless and gullible, with their being persuaded that all participants were equally vile. It wasn't so with American veterans in World War Two--and British veterans and Canadian veterans and Australian veterans and Frenchman who had fought on our side--and so on. We would have said the Nazis were evil in any event, since we had decided to fight them. That has always been the style in war, until very recently, anyhow: to declare the enemy evil--in order that we can be frenzied on the battlefield. Imagine our surprise when we discovered that our German enemies really were satanic this time. They had been accused of making soap and candles out of human beings in the First World War. They really did it in the second one. We had fought something which was totally obscene.

"This was very bad for us. We were empty-headed children in that war, as all ground soldiers are. Anything could be put into our heads and we would believe it. And one idea that was put into our heads was that our enemies were so awful, so evil, that we, by contrast, must be remarkably pure. That illusion of purity, to which we were entitled in a way, has become our curse today...

"...I am not pure. We are not pure. Our nation is not pure. And I insist that at the core of the American tragedy, best exemplified by the massacre of civilians at My Lai, is the illusion engendered by World War Two: that in the war between good and evil we are always, perfectly naturally, on the side of good. This is what makes us so unrestrained in the uses of weaponry..."

The man made several good points, I think. But what I'd like to emphasize is the last part, which is that none of us are all pure and good (including soldiers) and because of the lack of purity sometimes soldiers will do immoral things. So that's why I feel that a soldier should not be idolized and respect just because he or she is a soldier. You need to look at what the person has done first, and then decide whether she or he is worthy of respect and idolization.

Whether or not Vonnegut would agree with me about how much respect soldiers deserve, I don't know. He was one himself and a P.O.W. to boot, so even though he was always anti-war he probably would understand soldiers better than I do, might sympathize with them more than I do.

But I don't believe that the U.S. is always on the side of good any more. Iraq may not have been as costly as Vietnam, but it was just as disillusioning for me as I'm sure Vietnam was disillusioning for people back then. And as for whether or not I support the troops, whether or not I respect the troops? That depends on what mission the troops are carrying out, and whether they are carrying it out willingly or not.

Then they would go on to say "I was there and you weren't! That makes me better than you! So you better treat me with the respect I'm due! What the hell have you ever done to deserve any respect?" That is condescending, and I do not appreciate somebody saying that their military service somehow makes them worth more than I am.

I have never in my life seen or heard a veteran say that serving made him/her better than anyone else. Someone saying that would be obnoxious, I admit. Of course, obnoxiousness itself isn't a justification for hitting someone, or even wanting to hit someone. You're right, we only punish actions, not thoughts or words. (Except on college campuses.) That doesn't diminish your overreaction to someone you find obnoxious. You're still presenting yourself like you have anger management problems: you want to hit people who offend you (maybe not everyone who offends you, but a subset you find particularly odious), and you think that's okay as long as you don't actually follow through.

I'm sorry for the repetition, I just want to make absolutely sure that you understand me, since you so clearly did not understand me the first time.

I understood you fine. I just didn't agree with you. Incidentally, you added a new variable by having your straw man, excuse me, veteran say he was better than you. I don't think it's an important difference, I'm just observing that it's there.

No, I would only want to hit somebody if he disagreed with me politically on something as serious as the Vietnam War AND went on to tell me that because of all he had done for me by being in that war (which would be nothing, even if I lived in the U.S.) he expected me to worship him like a hero and agree that everything he said was right. Now maybe you'd be cool with somebody talking down to you like that. I wouldn't be.

Are these creatures common in your neck of the woods? I really don't think I've ever encountered a soldier who expected me to worship him, particularly one who expected me to worship him specifically because of his veteran status.

I have never seen McCain say that he was better than other people because of what he went through. I have never seen any other veteran claim to be better than other people by virtue of having worn the uniform. There does seem to be a sense of having "paid their dues," and voters seem to agree: Sen. Obama is the second Presidential candidate of my lifetime not to have served in the military. Vice President Gore's opinion seems to be typical. "I didn't do the most, or run the gravest danger. But I was proud to wear my country's uniform. And my own experiences gave me strong beliefs about America's obligation to keep our national defenses strong." And while you seem only to approve of people (e.g. Sen. Kerry) who came back having changed their minds about the war, Mr. Gore apparently (if Wikipedia is to be believed, and I realize that is sometimes a big if) went over thinking the war was a mistake, and came back still thinking that but conflicted because "opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom. Coming face to face with those sentiments expressed by people who did the laundry and ran the restaurants and worked in the fields was something I was naively unprepared for."

And yes, if I actually did hit this McLean, then I would be initiating the violence, and he'd be justified in hitting me back.

Actually, no he wouldn't. You're only legally entitled to use force to defend yourself to the extent necessary to protect yourself from further violence. It's absolutely not the law that you get to hit back anytime someone hits you, unless you reasonably fear further violence. So unless you were so offended by McLean's foul mouth that you hit him and intended to keep hitting him to show him just how much you hate being talked down to, he'd legally need to just walk away and not act like a child. ("Moooooom, he hit me!" "Well, hit him back.")

I wrote: I do think that people who put themselves in harm's way for their nation deserve respect.

Tell me something. Why is it only those in the military who are described as "serving their country"? Or "putting themselves in harm's way for their nation"?... Don't firefighters, doctors, and police officers deserve as much--or more--respect for "serving their country" than those in the military? These are all people whose job involves improving things inside the borders of the United States, whereas the military is usually more concerned with attacking and killing people outside the borders of the United States.

Killing people outside our borders... like the Nazis you mention lower in your post? (Tempting though it is to invoke Godwin's Law and declare this discussion over, I'll take a shot at answering you anyway.)

Look, nobody said you're supposed to give Lt. Calley a hero's welcome. (To save anyone the trouble of Googling: he commanded the platoon that massacred My Lai.) But doctors don't get shot at for doing their jobs. Policemen sometimes do, and firefighters charge into burning buildings. Contrary to your later assertion, I've seen them get lots of respect for public service, particularly after 9/11. There was a national orgy of, quite appropriate I think, gratitude over the roles they play.

And for what it's worth, I'm proud of what I do. I don't think it makes me a superior person, though.

Your specific question (why they usually aren't accorded respect in the "served their nation" terminology) may have a technical response: federalism. Most (almost all in fact) cops and firefighters are employed at the state or local level. They all wear US flags on their uniforms, they're plainly public servants, but they're not national agents. Although, given the number of retired/reserve military people in the law enforcement community, a fair number are or have been both.

Soldiers, like cops and firefighters, deliberately put themselves in harm's way to protect members of their nation/community. Some, like Mr. Gore, deliberately do so to keep someone else from having to. I respect them for that. My opinion of Mr. Gore did, in fact, go up when I looked into his military service, and while there was no chance in hell of me ever voting for Sen. Kerry, I respected him for once having done something courageous for his country. I have a feeling that you and I hold opinions that are frankly irreconcilable.

This seems odd: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/27/mccain-now-says-hell-negotiate-the-bailout-via-cell-phone/

Since all comments of mine now seem to be held if they have even a single url, I'm going to spell out the protocol prefixes:

This seems odd: McCain, who suspended his campaign because of the financial crisis, now says he'll participate in negotiations by phone:
double-u, double-u, double-u, dot crooksandliars.com/2008/09/27/mccain-now-says-hell-negotiate-the-bailout-via-cell-phone/

Regarding Pakistan, Sarah Palin contradicts McCain, and makes a statement that seems in agreement with Obama:
double-u, double-u, double-u, dot cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry4483110.shtml

Dinosaurs and humans coexisted, according to Palin:
double-u, double-u, double-u, dothuffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html

Rob Brown, I don't think I can disagree with anything you said in your post @05:53.

To further the argument against torture, many studies have shown that information received from torture victims is almost always untrue. People will say almost anything to stop the torture.

Hey, Mark -

I am a Brazilian, so ALL my exposure to the US is through pop culture, news, and the Internet. You may have a point. 9/11 may be only the culmination of a trend that started in the late 70s, of respect for the soldiers.

Still, from what I remember, the 1980s were a decade when the spectre of nuclear anihilation was always lurking. People had more of a suspicion of all things military. There was also a big fear of dehumanization (Terminator, Robocop) associated with the authorities.

Platoon and the first Rambo showed the effects of this dehumanization, and the sympathetic soldiers in these movies were more damaged goods than heroes. The second and third Rambo movies were more jingoistic, true. It was a very polarized decade too.

The 1990s were even more cynical, even though the Cold War was over by then. In the 1990s, the rebels were the heroes.

I'm not saying you're wrong. The change of perception was gradual. But I would say the real shift came in the late-1990s and was solidified by 9/11, that soldiers are heroes until proved otherwise.

The depiction of war in movies and media became more brutal and realistic, but at the same time, the soldier characters became more heroic.

PAD, I have to disagree on two points. First, I think Obama won the debate. McCain looked better during the foreign policy aspect of the debate BUT--thanks in large part to McCain!--that wasn't the main thrust of the debate! And Obama clearly looked better than McCain during the economic part. Which is the part that right now is what people are focused on. So Obama won. I haven't read any polls but I'll be amazed if that isn't reflected in popular opinion.

People who are complaining that Obama looked weaker than they expected must not have seen him in the Democratic debates. His debating skills are not the equal of his speaking skills. Well, how did the primaries work out? As long as he can hold his own--and even the most partisan Republican would have to admit he at least held his own--he will be fine.

My second area of disagreement would be in trying to get McCain to lose his temper. For starters, since I don't think he lost the debate there is no reason to start acting like he did and take risky desperate chances. And as a strategy, I think it's a mistake to depend on the predicted reactions of someone else--especially if it's a reaction that is widely predicted. McCain knows he has a reputation for a temper. He knows that his opponents will try to exploit it. Depending on him just not being able to help himself despite all these warnings is risky. Already some have criticized Obama for using "John" instead of "Senator". If he is perceived as goading McCain and McCain fails to rise to the bait, he looks bad. The retorts almost write themselves. McCain can ask if this is how he intends to act with other world leaders. if McCain can keep his cool enough to respond with humor Obama will either have to reverse tactics (Headline--McCain disarms with charm) or keep going to the bitter end (Headline-Obama acts like a dick). You even risk the audience turning on you, which is the sound bite and all that people will take away from it.

Why risk it? He's winning.

Wish i had time to read all the comments but it's been a crazy weekend--only caught the debates thanks to the web. Haven't even had the chance to let the pundits tell me what I thought.

"Sometimes violence IS the answer."
If violence is the answer, no one involved understood the question.

Like Friend Mulligan, crazy weekend, I'm exhausted, so I'm going to pass out now.

What's stood out from the analysis I've reviewed is how effective Obama was in showing what he presented of himself in the democratic convention not breaking under the debate. A lot of the obstruction in the country accepting Obama hasn't been in what or how he's been presenting himself, but in accepting that that hasn't been a performance hiding some kind of negative black stereotype (this notion isn't exactly intuitive to me; I can only guess this is some kind of consequence of being a country largely made up of fakers). Obama simply made the debate about showing him as the same beneath what McCain hacked away from him. Freaking brilliant.

Apparently the source of McCain's smoldering anger at Obama was from the democrats trumping his attempt to hijack the bail-out proceedings. The House Republicans he was chummy were developing a really high-risk alternate plan to consolidate the vulnerable banks by forming an insurance-like pool among them -- and Obama was pressing McCain for his stand on it:

Boehner was blunt. The plan Paulson laid out would not win the support of the vast majority of House Republicans. It had been improved on the edges, with an oversight board and caps on the compensation of participating executives. But it had to be changed at the core. He did not mention the insurance alternative, but Democrats did. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, pressed Boehner hard, asking him if he really intended to scrap the deal and start again.

No, Boehner replied, he just wanted his members to have a voice. Obama then jumped in to turn the question on his rival: "What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?" he asked repeatedly. McCain did not answer.

One Republican in the room said it was clear that the Democrats came into the meeting with a "game plan" aimed at forcing McCain to choose between the administration and House Republicans. "They had taken McCain's request for a meeting and trumped it," said this source.

Congressional aides from both parties were standing in the lobby of the West Wing, unaware of the discord inside the Cabinet room, when McCain emerged alone, shook the hands of the Marines at the door and left. The aides were baffled. The plan had been for a bipartisan appearance before the media, featuring McCain, Obama and at least a firm statement in favor of intervention. Now, one of the leading men was gone.

The rest of the actors poured out of the room still highly agitated. Democrats clustered in the hall between the lobby and the Oval Office, pressing Bachus to explain what had happened to the deal. The Democrats discussed whether to go before the cameras waiting in front of the White House, but Obama refused. Without McCain next to him, he said, he would be skewered for using the White House as a backdrop. As the talk grew louder, Obama asked if they could duck into a room, and back they went to the ornate, windowless Roosevelt Room.

It was then that Paulson gingerly walked in to beg, "Don't blow this up, please." The secretary feared that Democrats would throw their hands up and declare the deal dead.

The crowd erupted in unison, all barking at Paulson that they were not the problem -- he needed to talk to his own party. Under the barrage, Paulson dropped to one knee, clasped his hands in front of his face as if he were praying and joked: "Please, please, don't blow this up. Give me some time."

"Hank," Pelosi replied, "I didn't know you were Catholic."

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603957_pf.html

The republican administration treasury secretary on his knees begging the democrats for the help their own party was withholding from them. I thought the on-his-knees reference was a metaphor up to now. Un-fricking-believable.

What's stood out from the analysis I've reviewed is how effective Obama was in showing what he presented of himself in the democratic convention not breaking under the debate. A lot of the obstruction in the country accepting Obama hasn't been in what or how he's been presenting himself, but in accepting that that hasn't been a performance hiding a negative black stereotype (This notion isn't exactly intuitive to me; I can only guess this is some kind of consequence of being a country largely made up of fakers). Obama simply made the debate about showing him as the same beneath what McCain hacked away from him. Freaking brilliant.

It seemed to me Obama spent a good part of the debate trying to drill laser holes in McCains head.

Rene,

I think you have to make a distinction between the attitude toward soldiers and an attitude toward the military as an institution. so I don't know if soldiers were ever reviled, but the attitude toward them and the military did change at the timeline you describe.

I think there is a tendancy in american culture in general to focus on the individual and not the institution, and to like rebels, even at the time when the army was portrayed positively. It is definitely easy to see a shift in attitude in the 70's because of the Vietnam war, the individual against the establishment, and the damaging effect of the institution and the war. This trend continued into the 80's (when the young people of the 60's became the adults). But in the 80's there is also the effect of Reagen, so soldiers became less damaged and more capable, and therefore more respectable. I'm less sure about the 90's. The US still liked rebels and was suspicious of institutions, but the effects of Vietnam were reduced, soldiers were less damaged and the army as an institution was viewed less negatively. Although maybe other institutions replaced it -- the government, the corporations. A movie like Saving Private Ryan sugnifies a change in trend too, although I'm not sure exactly how. Strangely, I'm not sure 9/11 was a cause for a shift in an attitude toward the army at all, or that the trend of moving away from the post Vietnam attitude was simply continuing. Iraq caused a change too, but the focus this time is less on the army and more on the government as the bad institution, I think.

Although I agree with you (and pretty much everything you say about everything; this remark is not sarcastic) I think that would hurt Obama. For whatever reason, the Republicans have been trying to label Obama an elitist and a snob and this would only exemplify this. The fact that they've been trying to make Obama "folksy" by having him say things like Main Street versus Wall Street seems out of character. They're trying to say it's a bad thing to be well-spoken and educated. Although I think Spaceman (I refuse to call an out of touch dinosaur by his actual name) is a cantankerous old soul, you may have the problem that Biden is going to run against when he debates Palin: no one wants to see someone bully a smaller opponent.

Yes, I agree. The US has always liked heroic rebels, it's one of the things I most admire about the country, but I think the 1990s were a sort of pinnacle of rebel-chic, at least in pop culture.

Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers come in the late-90s/early-2000s, when things start to definitely shift.

I believe 9/11 is important in that it made being patriotic into a "cool" thing, and that had some effect in how people regard soldiers. But it's funny that distrust of government has made a big comeback in the last few years too.

Whether you believe or not in the conspiracy theories surrounging George W. Bush, they had an effect in pop culture. But it seems like this time people don't blame the soldiers, unlike Nixon/Vietnam.

Maybe it's my memory, but I don't remember the 90's being very rebel-chic. Based on my very faulty memory I would say the more you moved away from the 60's attitudes became less rebellious. I do think of the 90's as being very individualistic. 9/11 may have partially changed that.

Here is a link to how McCain is likely to win.

http://tinyurl.com/42xm2b

The important part starts in paragraph 6 with "Beyond this, there could be November 4th surprise:..."

It's called cheating.

Alan, it's a little early to already be making excuses for a loss that hasn't happened and, judging by the polls, is unlikely to happen.

Boy, having the codes to those Diebold machines really worked for the republicans in 2006 didn't it? When Obama wins and the Democrats control both houses will we finally put away the "Whole thing is rigged! Rigged I tells ya!" meme or will it just be resurrected when the next election comes along?

(as an aside--with Democrats controlling both houses you'd think they would have tried to make sure this wasn't a possibility--instead we are supposed to believe they frittered away their opportunity and allowed the GOP to keep control over the voting booths. Please. If you think they were really that stupid why would you want them to win?)

"Dinosaurs and humans coexisted, according to Palin:
double-u, double-u, double-u, dothuffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html"

You know, I hope this stuff continues, because this is how the Democrats will lose this election for Obama.

This is such a smear, and it's really an attack on red-states and their "Crazy views" because all religious republicans must be nuts, and think that the earth is 6000 years old.

You've got one person, (a person who runs the Progressive Alaska web blog and is active campaining for Democrats in Alaska) making an claim that he heard Palin make a statement 12 years ago. A statement that noone else has heard, and that has not been backed up, and in the entire time since then, noone has heard a similar statement from Palin...

But it must be true, because she's a Hick from Alaska, right?

So, the LA times runs it as the truth, again, with no supporting information, and shocker of shockers, the Huffington Post runs with it as well.

It's the same credibility as if Rush came out, claimed that he heard Obama claim 10 years ago that he liked to kick puppies, and rape children, and Fox News ran a headline "Obama Kicks Puppies and Rapes Children!" based on that second had quote.

It's horrible journalism, and totally not needed. There are plenty of valid areas to attack McCain and Palin, and making these smears, which will motivate and polorize the right really are a mistake on the part of the left.

I think the 1990s were extremely rebellious, but perhaps not like the 1960s. 1990s rebellion was born from disenchantment. Even the dreams of the 1960s were dead. A new world was not possible, and this world sucked, was the ethos.

Everything I remember from pop culture in the 1990s reflected this disenchantment with the old ways.

In comics, the superheroes of old were finally desecrated. They were dying, retiring, had their backs broken, etc. etc. replaced by cooler, untamed versions, not restricted by outmoded codes. We also saw the birth of Vertigo.

In genre novels we say cyberpunk. TV had the X-Files riddled with anti-government sentiment, and MTV reigning supreme. In music we saw the birth of grunge and Kurt Cobain was the greatest hero. In RPGs we had Vampire: the Masquerade. In movies we had Interview with the Vampire and Hannibal and the beginning of the Matrix.

Everything seemed to have a bit of anger to it. There was a desire to tear things down that I associate with rebellion.

Jerry Wall: But it must be true, because she's a Hick from Alaska, right?

I don't know about "must" be true, but it's not so unbelievable.

Palin has said that she believes Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools. When scientists told her that wolf hunting was down because the wolves were over-hunted, she tried to have the scientists removed from the review process that is part of hunting laws.

These are verifiable facts. They may not confirm the dinosaur story, but she does have a history of being anti-science.

I didn't read the article that you mention. From what you say, it doesn't have enough backing it up to make it worth reading. I'll certainly grant you that. But to compare it to a rumor of Obama raping children? Don't be ridiculous.

"I don't know about "must" be true, but it's not so unbelievable."

So any lie is ok, as long as it's believable? For that note, let's see your next statement.

"Palin has said that she believes Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools."

Completely untrue. From Factcheck.org "Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

At no time as Mayor or Governor, did she push a pro-creatinist agenda. She has only pushed for the discussion of evolution. Surely, debating the plus and minuses of a scientific theory is not anti-science.

"When scientists told her that wolf hunting was down because the wolves were over-hunted, she tried to have the scientists removed from the review process that is part of hunting laws."

Do you have something you can cite here? I can't find anything online about this. I do find articles where the Alaska Department of Fish and Game wanted to do massive wolf hunts from State helicoptors because the wolf population is too large and she didn't want to allow that unless there was no other choice.

The specifics of the rumor don't matter. It would have the same validity or truth behind it. In fact, you made my point for me. People love to repeat these type of lies, because they sound like they could be true (or as you put it "it's not so unbelievable").

Surely, debating the plus and minuses of a scientific theory is not anti-science.

In general, I agree. But surely YOU know, Jerry, that "teach the controversy" has become the current rallying cry of creationists nationwide. Having failed to get creationism into the curriculum outright, they're now emphasizing that "strengths and weakness" of evolutionary theory be taught, as if evolutionary theory somehow stands apart from any other theory.

I teach science, Jerry. You're damned right that when I teach a particular idea, I should mention both the evidence in favor and any evidence against (or in broader terms, how we as a species came to our current understanding, seeing science as a process). The fact that people insist I do so for evolution and apparently ONLY evolution, however, is why I consider them almost intrinsically untrustworthy so far as their motives are concerned.

This is something of a sidebar in the Palin discussion, but saying "she's only talked about teaching the pluses and minuses" is a disingenuous argument, and I wanted to make sure you knew that before continuing to push said argument.

TWL

Jerry: "So any lie is ok, as long as it's believable?"

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything remotely like that. You compared the rumor about Palin to a vastly more nasty rumor about Obama and I argued that you were exagerating. You can't even prove that their story was a lie, just that it didn't have enough evidence to be worth reading, which I agreed with you on.

Jerry, you said I was wrong about Palin's statements. But you're completely wrong.

If you'd finished reading that article on factcheck.org, you'd have seen this statement from Palin:

Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

I said that Palin believes Creationism should be taught in school. Factcheck.org has a direct quote from her saying that she is a proponent of that.

The information about Palin suppressing scientists is something I got from a radio interview with an Alaskan journalist, so I don't have a link. However, this article has an account of Palin lying about what state scientists told her about polar bears:

http://savethewolvesnow.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-eyeglasses-need-adjusting.html

And here's an article about her fights with scientists over the aerial wolf hunting laws:

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/?source=newsletter

That article mentions how she tried to have authority transferred away from people who opposed her, though it doesn't go into the detail of the radio interview I was talking about, so all I can offer from it is this:

Earlier this year she introduced state legislation that would further divorce the predator-control program from science. The legislation would transfer authority over the program from the state Department of Fish and Game to Alaska's Board of Game, whose members are appointed by, well, Palin. Even some hunters were astounded by her power play.

Palin is clearly anti-science. If the dinosaur article you mentioned didn't have enough substantiation, fair enough. But don't tell me that this is some giant conspiracy to tell wild rumors about her, on the level of child rape. Be reasonable.

Completely untrue. From Factcheck.org "Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Also from FactCheck.org:

"Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Jason said that Palin wants creationism to be taught. You dispute that and say it's untrue. Yet, the quote from Palin from the same source as your own quote backs up Jason, that Palin indeed does want creationism taught right next to evolution.

So which is it, Jerry?

Jerry Wall Surely, debating the plus and minuses of a scientific theory is not anti-science.
Luigi Novi: Only if the arguments that present the "minuses" are scientific in nature, and indeed, scientists do this all the time with evolution. But none of the arguments of creationism are scientific, and therefore, such a discussion belongs in a social sciences class, but not a science one.

Are these creatures common in your neck of the woods? I really don't think I've ever encountered a soldier who expected me to worship him, particularly one who expected me to worship him specifically because of his veteran status.

Whenever a soldier has said something to the effect of "I risked my life to protect people like you", the message is basically "I deserve to be looked up to. You should be grateful."

Whenever somebody says that everybody had better "support the troops", the message is basically "they deserve to be looked up to. You should be grateful to them." Even if I do not approve of their mission. Even if that mission does not actually do anything to improve the state of the world, but rather makes things worse. Even if it involves the killing of civilians. Even if the mission does nothing at all to protect me or anybody else.

For anybody, either a soldier (and I have seen veterans make the sort of statements that imply they feel entitled to a certain level of respect just because they happen to wear a certain uniform) or some blindly patriotic civilian to insist that I support or respect the troops, all the troops, is unreasonable. Offensive, too.

Actually, no he wouldn't. You're only legally entitled to use force to defend yourself...

Yeah, here's the thing. I wasn't telling you what the law was, I was telling you what I personally felt would be justified.

Perhaps you'll have a good laugh if the following layman's opinion is incorrect, but here it is anyway: I have a feeling that if somebody punched me, and I recovered and knocked them on their ass, and it ended there, I probably wouldn't have the book thrown at me.

Rob Brown, I don't think I can disagree with anything you said in your post @05:53.

To further the argument against torture, many studies have shown that information received from torture victims is almost always untrue. People will say almost anything to stop the torture.

Thanks Alan. And I'm not surprised about the ineffectiveness of torture.

I believe 9/11 is important in that it made being patriotic into a "cool" thing, and that had some effect in how people regard soldiers.

Yup, it did. Because suddenly everybody felt dependent on the military to protect them, even though that's really more the job of law enforcement and--in the case of the hijackings--airport security.

The important part starts in paragraph 6 with "Beyond this, there could be November 4th surprise:..."

It's called cheating.

Yeah, I always worry about that kind of thing. I'm amazed that they haven't fixed the whole "nobody with the same name as a convicted criminal is allowed to vote" thing yet. Somebody isn't doing their job.

There's one last thing...why is John McCain a "hero", anyway? The logic behind calling him a hero reminds me of this exchange from an early Simpsons episode:

Homer: That Timmy is a real hero!
Lisa: How do you mean, Dad?
Homer: Well, he fell down a well, and...he can’t get out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: Well, that’s more than you did!

Back when I thought McCain was decent guy, I wouldn't have said anything bad about him. But now that he's shown himself to be anything but decent I have to ask: what did he do that was so heroic? Crash his plane five times? Shoot at targets on the ground that couldn't retaliate, sort of like his running mate likes to do from her helicopter? Get captured?

Somebody please explain this to me. I'm not saying that he never did anything heroic. Maybe there's some deed that I haven't heard about. I'm just saying that the deeds I have heard about don't exactly inspire awe.

I never looked at McCain as a hero even when I did like him, btw. I felt sorry for him, for what he was subjected to, but I didn't think of him as a hero.

Except that she has fallen more on the side of "if students bring it up, it should be ok to be discussed". Basically, she believes in encouraging discourse of all types.

Here's a good link on her actions as Governor. -

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

By all accounts, she's done a good job seperating any personal religious beliefs from her job as Governor. Isn't that all we should ask? By all accounts, all the candidates claim to believe in the "magic voodo sky god" and pride themselves on regularly attending regular "superstitious based" cult ceremonies, where they meet and pass in money and take bread and wine in a celebration of faith (as apposed to science).

In addition, McCain has come out as a solid believer in evolution. Typically, the VP pushes the agenda of the sitting President. But like you said, it is just a side-bar. The fact remains that she has NEVER stated her support for teaching creationism in school. Can we infer some creationist tendencies from some of her statements? Maybe, but it's a little of a stretch, and a lot of guilt by association.

"So which is it, Jerry?"

Ahh... I had seen her later quote, but not her earlier quote. Based on that, I'd have to say I don't know 100% what her desire is. So Mea Cupla there. Not much else I can say.

In addition, McCain has come out as a solid believer in evolution.

Not THAT solid. He's equivocated at various times about putting intelligent design in the curriculum.

Based on that, I'd have to say I don't know 100% what her desire is.

She's a flip-flopper! ;)

But seriously, I'm not a creationist fan. At all. She's not pushing for it to be taught, and that's all well and good, but creationism does not belong in the science classroom.

creationism does not belong in the science classroom.

Sure it foes. Just like spontaneous generation and the geocentric view of the universe. It's important to show how the scientific method allows us to modify our knowledge as new facts emerge.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that teaching creationism in the schools may be the only way to get rid of it. I have kids who think I'm not allowed to even discuss it. I cheerfully disagree and have so far not had any trouble countering any creationist talking points. Why wouldn't I?

Whenever a soldier has said something to the effect of "I risked my life to protect people like you", the message is basically "I deserve to be looked up to. You should be grateful."

That's your interpretation. I'm not sure everybody reads it the same. And I have a feeling soldiers tend not to start a conversation, "I risked my life to protect people like you." That sounds more like a retort.

Whenever somebody says that everybody had better "support the troops", the message is basically "they deserve to be looked up to. You should be grateful to them." Even if I do not approve of their mission. Even if that mission does not actually do anything to improve the state of the world, but rather makes things worse. Even if it involves the killing of civilians. Even if the mission does nothing at all to protect me or anybody else.

You realize that all of these are subjective judgments, right? Whether a campaign makes the world a better place, whether the bloodshed was "worth it" is often a matter of opinion, particularly between victor and vanquished. I remember lots of people getting bent out of shape over the first Gulf War and the bombing campaign in ex-Yugoslavia, but now they're not usually trotted out as signs of the coming apocalypse. Whether a mission or campaign ultimately is beneficial may not be obvious for years, and may be the subject of debate among political scientists and historians even then. Lots of people objected vehemently to Reagan's buildup and the basing of US forces overseas during the Cold War, but, um, it did actually seem to help usher in the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. So my point is, when you make these judgments about whether something "does nothing at all to protect me or anybody else," how do we know you're right? How do you know you're right? And how does that become relevant to how you treat a serviceman who has no clue as he's conducting the mission how it will turn out?

For anybody, either a soldier (and I have seen veterans make the sort of statements that imply they feel entitled to a certain level of respect just because they happen to wear a certain uniform) or some blindly patriotic civilian to insist that I support or respect the troops, all the troops, is unreasonable. Offensive, too.

You're just going to have to get used to me offending you then.

I grew up during the waning days of the Cold War. There's been some discussion of pop culture and movies. The one that comes to mind for me is "The Day After." I remember having "nuclear missile drills" in grade school-- as though hiding under our desks would help if an MRV hit Charlotte. "Peace through strength" worked and works. American soldiers did risk their lives to protect people like me. The Soviet threat was real. (See also: Budapest, 1956; Prague Spring.) So the paradigm I have of the US Armed Forces is that of them actually and literally protecting the free world, risking having to go to war at any time. Or, as Aaron Sorkin put it in "A Few Good Men:"
Lt. Weinberg: Why do you like them so much?
Galloway: Because they stand upon a wall and say, "Nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch."

It reminds me of a law school discussion about the Warren Court's then-unprecedented intrusion into police procedure. If the image you have in your head of the police is an abusive, invasive, somewhat unethical authority, then you tend to prefer constraints on their discretion and activity. (That was the model the Warren Court had.) If you envision them as public servants, doing the best they can to keep people safe, then maybe you're less inclined to ride them. (It's also possible that the latter model is more prevalent now because the Warren Court reined in the excesses of the "old school." I'm conservative but not stupid.)

The image I have of a US soldier is a 20ish year old kid sitting in a tank in Germany hoping the Soviets won't be crazy enough to invade. A Ranger in Afghanistan hunting down the Taleban and Al Qaeda doesn't strike me as being very different. The US military is the deadliest, most powerful organization the world has ever seen, but it's largely staffed by kids who've trained as professional soldiers. And sometimes they are interposed between people like me and danger. Of course I appreciate what they risk. And I support them. All of them.

Perhaps you'll have a good laugh if the following layman's opinion is incorrect, but here it is anyway: I have a feeling that if somebody punched me, and I recovered and knocked them on their ass, and it ended there, I probably wouldn't have the book thrown at me.

If I had a nickel for every person I've surprised by convicting them for doing just that... hold on, that's actually pretty close to what the state pays me. I don't get paid per case, of course, but compared to what the people I went to law school with get paid in the corporate sector, nickels seem like the right order of magnitude. Not that I'm bitter... but I do cling to guns, God, and xenophobia.

what did he do that was so heroic? Crash his plane five times? Shoot at targets on the ground that couldn't retaliate, sort of like his running mate likes to do from her helicopter? Get captured?

Yes just like that war criminal, Jimmy Stewart (flew B-24s during WWII), Senator McCain ruthlessly bombed targets on the ground who couldn't retaliate, except for that one time they retaliated and he was shot down by ground fire. The only heroic thing he did after that was refuse an early release that the NVA offered him. POWs are supposed to be released in the order in which they are captured. McCain was the son and grandson of US Navy full admirals. He declined to give the NVA the propaganda coup that would result from a privileged officer accepting special treatment, and was given an even-worse-than-usual beating for it. So yeah, all he did was turn down a ticket out of hell because of duty and solidarity with his fellow prisoners. Nothing praiseworthy at all.

Oh, and by the way, he lost 4 aircraft: the one that was shot down, the one that blew up on the Forrestal, and two "engine failures." (Cf http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_mccain_crash_five_planes_did_he.html ) I'm surprised you know about the 5 plane internet rumor but not the better-known (and actually truthful) narrative of his POW status. How did you manage that? I'm just glad you didn't accuse him of bombing the Forrestal, another internet meme.

In case anyone's interested, a couple of September 28 posts of mine that went into the site's junk filer because they had a few url's in them are now on the board, thanks to Glenn, in their proper chronological place.

Oh, and to Jerome Maida: You and I had an exchange pertaining to "Obama's character" on the "Can Sarah Palin Come Out and Play?" board. My made a post on September 21 in which I responded in depth to you last post, but it also went into the Junk folder, but is now there, in its proper chronological place, as well. Just FYI. :-)

The only heroic thing he did after that was refuse an early release that the NVA offered him.

Looks like you're right when you say we can't reconcile our differences of opinion. I had a feeling somebody was gonna come back with that, and my response is: yes, it was admirable, yes, it took significant courage, but no, it is not "heroic" in my view. I was asking about what he'd done prior to his capture, although I could have made that much clearer (and this time I say that without sarcasm).

Oh hey, growing up during the Cold War, I have a question for you. If Russia had decided to launch a nuke at your hometown, do you think ground troops would be able to protect you? Didn't you owe your safety primarily to Russia's fear of being nuked right back by whoever had the duty of sitting around waiting to get the order to push the button? How was some grunt with a rifle affecting your chances of survival back then?

You can spare me the Cold War stories btw. My parents grew up during that period, so I heard plenty of them while I was growing up. My mother lost her first husband when the Scorpion went down. My father was in the U.S. Navy before he met my mother, left military service for a civilian work and eventually got transferred to Canada, where I was born. So I've heard about the hiding under the desks and the air raid sirens and all of that. Neither one of them could accurately be described as an "America-hater", and both of them do respect military servicepeople (although not quite as blindly as you appear to). But you know what's funny? These days, when I've talked to them about U.S. politics, neither one of them has any respect left for John McCain that I can tell.

Despite his military service. Despite growing up in the same environment that you did (and for comparison purposes to your own age, both were born in the early '40s), they're not so brainwashed that they can't see what a scumbag the man has become and have their respect for him drastically wane as a result.

If I had a nickel for every person I've surprised by convicting them for doing just that...

Oh, so you make your living by throwing people into prison for retaliating in the heat of the moment, after they have been provoked? You throw people into an environment where they are subjected to brutal beatings and rapes for something like that? And you're proud of yourself? Well, that makes one of us that's proud of you.

You know, I've always thought that prosecutors and judges ought to spend a week in prison, without any special treatment or protective custody, just so they know EXACTLY what they're doing when they sentence somebody to prison time for a trivial offense. That's my whole philosophy of life: people ought to understand firsthand the pain they inflict on others with their actions.

Didn't you owe your safety primarily to Russia's fear of being nuked right back by whoever had the duty of sitting around waiting to get the order to push the button? How was some grunt with a rifle affecting your chances of survival back then [during the Cold War]?

One of the factors restraining the Soviets from launching a first-strike attack was our own strength. Had they been able to seize enough of the world's territory, they would have been in a position to launch a more conventional attack, or to absorb our nuclear counterblow (remember, strategists at the time actually thought one could "win" a nuclear exchange). That "grunt with a rifle" was both projecting the image of America's strength and resolve, and preventing the USSR from expanding in its preferred fashion.

None of this is guesswork; I was actually involved in nuclear planning toward the end of the Cold War (got my discharge the year before the USSR collapsed), and was privy to such information. (Don't sweat it - everything I knew was routinely declassified over a decade ago.)

BTW, not quite germane to the point, but I find it a sign of intellectual laziness to conflate "Russian" and "Soviet" like that. It's rather inaccurate (the worst of the Soviet leaders, Josef Stalin, was in fact Ukrainian, and distrusted Russians), and is part of the mindset that keeps us and the Russians at each other's throats pointlessly. (Well, that and the fact that Putin used to run the KGB, but that's another story...)

Rob, you'd be a loot more likely to get people to see your point of view if you could accept the fact that disagreeing with it does not make one "brainwashed" or blind. that's the tactic of one who has nothing better to offer than ad hominem arguments and you are capable of more than that.

You know, I've always thought that prosecutors and judges ought to spend a week in prison, without any special treatment or protective custody, just so they know EXACTLY what they're doing when they sentence somebody to prison time for a trivial offense. That's my whole philosophy of life: people ought to understand firsthand the pain they inflict on others with their actions.

Do you really think we are in greater danger from judges and prosecutors than from criminals? Because that would be the effect of you suggestion, which I will assume was made tongue in cheek. If the prisons are badly run that is not the fault of cops and judges. Let me make an alternate suggestion; since discouraging judges from sending prisoners to jail will result in more of them free to commit crimes, will you be so kind as to allow them to live with you? Others would suffer from your largess, so by your philosophy you should want to share in the fun.

I think you are letting your disagreements with David goad you into taking positions that you probably don't really want to.

As for McCain's heroism, it's evident that some of those who had righteous anger at the way Kerry was treated were just paying lip service. My thesaurus lists as synonyms to "heroic"-- brave, courageous, dauntless, fortitudinous, gallant, hardy, intrepid, valiant, valorous-- all traits I would have little trouble ascribing to McCain and all the men who suffered with him, regardless of their current political affiliations. His refusal to leave that hellhole when given a chance is something I would hope I would emulate and even more hope I am never put in a position to see if I really would.

there are a million perfectly valid reasons not to vote for McCain. Go to Obama's webpage if you need some. You will not find "because McCain is not really a hero" on it.

Let me make an alternate suggestion; since discouraging judges from sending prisoners to jail will result in more of them free to commit crimes, will you be so kind as to allow them to live with you?

Well gee, "criminal" applies to a lot of people. And yeah, if I were either renting a room or looking for people to work for me, here's a list of people I'd feel fine hiring and/or renting the room to:

-people convicted of assault, depending on the circumstances of that assault
-people convicted of fraud
-people convicted of statutory rape, which should not be a crime if the sex was in fact consensual
-people convicted of drug possession
-people convicted of selling drugs
-people convicted of shoplifting, although I might not trust them enough to leave them alone with my stuff, unsupervised
-people convicted of burglary, with the same reservations as the shoplifter
-people convicted of driving drunk, because I wouldn't be giving these people my CAR

I think I've made my point without listing more crimes. You seem to talk about "criminals" as though they're lepers, but everybody makes mistakes.

I hope that I have misunderstood you, Bill, and I hope that you ARE in fact capable of looking at people who have been convicted of crimes as human beings just like yourself. If you can't, then that strikes me as terribly closed-minded, thinking in terms of "us and them."

As for David, I've given up trying to get him to see things from a certain point of view. It's futile. So I don't feel bad about calling him brainwashed, because the more I learn about him the less I like him. Plus, I do think he's brainwashed.

Do you really think we are in greater danger from judges and prosecutors than from criminals? Because that would be the effect of you suggestion, which I will assume was made tongue in cheek.

It's all relative, as illustrated by comparing a murderer or rapist to a recreational drug user or shoplifter. I think prosecutors who are just looking to rack up convictions, rather than those who genuinely want to find out whether somebody's guilty or innocent and who genuinely ask themselves whether the person DESERVES prison time, are a greater threat than recreational drug users or shoplifters and less of a threat than, say, serial killers.

But a prosecutor with a closed mind, one who thinks "I KNOW this guy's guilty" when he doesn't really know, or one who thinks "the law is the law, and anybody who breaks it should go to jail, even if this particular law doesn't make sense"? They are working within the system to tear apart people's lives, and they manage to do just as much damage as certain types of criminals. But they do it legally.

Here, look at these links:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2007&base_name=prison_rape_1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-farrell/ending-the-hidden-savage_b_91867.html

If you can read those and think to yourself afterwards that it's good to just toss people in prison without giving the specifics of the case some thought, without thinking what a prison sentence will mean for them, without thinking whether the punishment fits the crime or exceeds it...

I have no idea how to finish that sentence.

The justice system is supposed to rehabilitate, not punish. Those judges and prosecutors who are sadistic enough to make punishment rather than rehabilitation their goal, then yes, I do want them to get a firsthand taste of what being in prison is like. I am not saying that tongue in cheek. I am not joking.

Bill, he was refering to "trivial offenses." I'm not sure how things are in the US, but here in Brazil we've seen some absurd things happen. Many people sent to jail for stealing trinkets, for instance (a poor woman stole a bottle of shampoo!).

Anyway, I'm not quite sure how a discussion about soldiers and McCain diverted into the prisonal system.

Jonathan, Stalin was Georgian, not Ukranian. Chuchov may have been Ukrainian, I don't remember and am too lazy to check.

For a long time I thought that the whole idea of how to punish crime and deal with criminals should be re-examined. Not because I feel criminals should be treated with kids gloves, but because I'm not sure the current jail based system is very good.

It should be noted that I'm not saying this in support of anything Rob Brown said in the posts above, just as an observation.

My husband works in a prison. Do you think that the prisoners are tortured all day? They do not have freedom of movement, nor are they allowed to own much while in prison, but only the very violent or mentally deranged are kept isolated from others. (This is different from isolation. I am not talking Gitmo. They are kept away from others for their and others safety.)

That said, there are many things we can do and are being done in some parts of the country to cut down on recidivism. Education while in prison and support, not just monitoring, when they get out. If you teach someone something they can use to get a job, help them get a job and a place to live when they get out, they are much less likely to commit a crime again. As I said, this program is working in some parts of the country. I'm sorry I have no url for the article I read about it, but I bet if you google rehabilitation you will find the article. We just need to put money into these types of programs. It saves money in the long run because we have to house and feed and clothe that many fewer prisoners. Of course, we seem to have become a short run country. Anything for short term gain and to heck with the future.

I don't know how much basis there is to the Hollywood image of brutality in jails, but in general I'm not sure a system in which criminals guilty of a wide variety of crimes are caged for short and medium periods of time with other criminals is the best or most cost effective way to either deter or rehabilitate or compensate victims. Caging, for long period of times, seems to me to be the only way to deal with violent criminals. But when it comes to the other kinds of crimes perhaps other methods should be considered. If somebody didn't pay taxes, it seems a waste of tax money to jail him. The punishment should involve taking more money from him. Community service seems like a good punishment for some crimes. And what about those ankle bracelets that keep people in their houses? Maybe what we also need are places that need to be developed to exile prisonmers