. . . Not everybody is buying that John-McCain-is-a-war-hero stuff. Here’s a guy (a professor at Princeton, no less) who figures McCain is halfway to being a regular Hitler. (The commenters agree, and then some.)

I almost hate to see an inflammatory link like this one because it won’t lead to a civil discussion but it could heap more coals on the flames of the partisans.

How to avoid it ?

I’m not sure there is a way, but I would focus on the relative merits of this current war and downplay non-relevant rhetoric. (yeah right)

The fact of the matter is that while many historians believe we were soundly defeated at Vietnam, many others, including senior American brass, what they teach at the war colleges, including Admiral McCain, John McCain’s father, believe we lost in Vietnam because of a weakness in civilian will.

In fact the main reason (as I understand it) the Swiftboaters grew so enraged over Kerry was not so much he opposed a war as the fact that he abandoned solidarity with them, a traitor in a sense.

You hear a softer version of the argument today. If we don’t finish the battle in Iraq we dishonor the blood and sacrifice already made.

This all has relevance today. McCain is continuing the philosophy and the wars of his father just as Bush is.

While arguments over McCain’s qualifications as commander-in-chief, his bravery, his torture, etc. are fascinating and might have significance, the one difference I do see between McCain and Obama is that McCain is more likely to stay the course.

I don’t even know if staying the course is the correct option or not. I only know that the two candidates offer up a slight differential in that regard for prospective voters.

Both are likely to weigh all the options in spite of campaign rhetoric that make them seem only one-sided. However, one is more likely to take a sterner stalwart stance.

Post Your Comments: