April 9, 2008

Keep trying, you'll get it right eventually

It seems that the McCain campaign is having a bit of a problem working out the kinks.

First it was revealed that when FOX asked the three candidates to submit statements via video tape to play during their "American Idol Cares" or whatever their charity show deal is called, the McCain campaign submision was of such poor quality as to render it unusable, and FOX had to tell them so. Apparently they shot another one that was up to snuff.

Then this.

Ah well, no one's perfect. We can wait until the general election begins in earnest for them to really screw things up.

And let's face facts, a campaign is essentially selling a product, and when the "product" holds rigid positions that 80% of voters (and the world) strongly disagree with, it's an uphill fight.

It strikes me that McCain's fatal flaw is precisely the military background that he's chosen to make the centerpiece of his campaign.

A soldier's trained to adopt a mindset. To do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission.

A soldier doesn't stop to think about why he's doing something. That's not his or her job. A soldier salutes and heads off to do what they're ordered to do.

McCain's tragedy is that he sees Iraq and the incredibly complex and nuanced Mid-East debacle as simply some battle, and to him, there's simply no choice but to continue to fight and fight and fight and fight until we win or are wiped out trying.

Most sane people realize that way of thinking just MIGHT not be too sensible.

McCain is obsessed with going down with the ship. bin Laden must be mighty pleased to see this, as one of his stated goals was to simply bankrupt and exhaust the U.S. just like they did to Russia in Afghanistan. So far, Bush and McCain and the rest have performed beautifully, like trained monkey's, or more accurately, Pavlov's dogs, in Osama's master plan.

The traits that make a good soldier with a nearly mindless drive to do as they're ordered, and to never quit, never stop, and never back down, do not translate to making a good statesman, or leader.

Those traits are important, and even essential to instill in troops in the field and fighting men and women in the armed forces. But if a leader has that unthinking single-mindedness and unwillingness to consider all options, then they are simply doomed.

McCain may be an exemplary soldier.

But he'd be an utterly disasterous commander-in-chief.


At 4/11/2008 12:33 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I dunno. He was a naval aviator. Kind of the idea of aviation is to remain airborne. Getting allegedly shot down by something from Mattel is not really a resume builder for a warrior.

Now, moving on to the present day he has not really defined "victory" so we know it when we see it. Usually in war, victory has metrics. Just like the rest of them he gives us no metrics for identifying victory when we see it.

All of which is to say was McFlightSuit has been saying all along "It's done when I say it's done--only I'll fade the heat to 'the generals'.

Continued Success.

At 4/12/2008 7:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Usually in war' - is this war anything that resembles 'usual'?

Usually in war, you have a country, with a leader, who you can defeat and that leadership can surrender. Defining 'victory' in said 'usual war' is a little easier.

But then again, liberal minds indeed have a hard time thinking outside the box.


How about Obama calling Pennsylvannia voters bitter?

Oops, another slip!

At 4/13/2008 4:44 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'm so sad that I get comments from people who can't think.


The only thing you can come up with is taking a few words out of context, then making the weirdest nonsensical argument possible from them.

So your point is that this isn't a usual war? Fine... I'm with you there.

But this changes the argument made in the post how...???

Not a bit, unfortunately for you.

As a matter of fact, it makes my point an even stronger indictment against McCain's mindset, as he seems obsessed with fighting this war as if it WERE a "normal" war, by continuing to throw billions of dollars in weapons and thousands of lives against an enemy he can't even identify correctly, and all in an effort to "win" a victory that he can't define, or when he does, is literally impossible.

So you think I was wrong how again?

And so nice you can titter like a schoolgirl about a story you think is damaging to Obama.

You act like saying that many Pennsylvania voters are bitter is some HUGE mistake, as if none of them are bitter and to dare suggest it is some horrible insult.

Frankly, if you had a mind, you'd realize that's utter bullshit.

A huge number of voters nationwide are indeed extremely bitter over the direction their lives are taking and the conditions of their communities.

You think that's news?

You think Obama really slipped up by pointing out the obvious?

Well, keep trying to twist it beyond recognition. But I believe there are enough people who are gullible tools such as yourself who can see through all these efforts to distract and distort things for political purposes.

And you know what? I think a lot of the bitterness out there is due to the fact that you and your party have engaged in this sort of dishonest bull for so long.

People are SICK OF IT, tired of being treated like morons, tired of being lied to, and tired of being told what they should think.

And that's exactly why so many supporting Obama are so devoted to his cause.

At 4/14/2008 9:06 AM, Anonymous Orville Portforker said...

Dope, you and Obama may be right. Let's remove every US soldier from Iraq and allow Iran to take over Iraq.

Let's pull US troops out of every effort to fight global terrorism and allow the terrorists to do what they want.

Maybe they'll do something, maybe they won't.
Maybe they bomb a Mall in Peoria, or a Starbucks in Dekalb. Maybe they won't.

It is clear that the left does not have the willingness to act on terrorism - unless there is a 100% direct relationship and an irrefutable face behind the act.

Maybe you are right, maybe terrorism is just something that the United States has to accept in the manner that Israel has.

1. Beef up internal security as best one can (of course, this will be limited because of personal freedoms and the ACLU),

2. Accept that terrorist activity will be a part of 21st-century life and that we will not be able to stop all attacks.

Will we lose 1,000 people a year? Unknown, but we will save the money presently being spent in Iraq.

I think that the choices are far more difficult than you apparently do - but I do agree, there are choices.

At 5/03/2008 11:44 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Orville (Mowen), you are the single most assinine commenter I've ever had, after Jacobs, and that's saying something.

Can you EVER make a point or an argument without resorting to outright lies, deception, or other attempts to completely distort the facts?

NO ONE, including myself or Obama or anyone else, is going around saying they want to pull every last American out of Iraq on the same day, as you so idiotically try to suggest is the only alternative to staying there forever.

That's just stupid, and so are you for persistently making such phoney arguments.

NO ONE is saying we should "let the terrorists do what they want" either. But face it Jimbo, THEY'RE ALREADY DOING WHAT THEY WANT and have been for the past 5 FREAKING YEARS.

And your argument is what? If we leave there will be chaos? Newsflash, there's been nothing but chaos ever since the day we invaded. What a clod.

And you're so delusional that you actually think it's a 50/50 chance that someone from al Queda would mail a bomb to a coffeeshop in DeKalb? You're freaking NUTS!

Apparently your apalling gulilbility has made you prime prey for the right wing noise machine, and you've sopped up enough fear to make you lose the capacity for rational thought!

And again with another of your bullshit favorite tactics, stating that some dumbass assumption or generality that you pulled out of your ass is "clear" or obvious.

You say the left has no willingness to stand up to terrorists. You don't say.

And just how freaking idiotic is that notion? Well, you said it. That makes it pretty damn stupid.

Needless to say, the left, the Dems, or any liberal most certainly is willing to stand up to any terror threat. Maybe not by throwing trillions of dollars at it, a large portion of which ends up in the hands of people who then use it to kill our soldiers, maybe not by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and creating literally millions of refugees. Maybe not in the utterly stupid and blundering way you've so vigorously supported.... but you're stupid.

You're an idiot because you think that unless someone supports the massively ignorant, reckless, costly, immoral, illegal, and catastrophic manner we're currently operating, that therefore it follows that they don't want to stand up to terrorists at all.

OK Mowen, guess you're right.

But I'm DAMN glad for everyone's sake that you couldn't even beat Zinga. Consider yourself lucky. You probably would have been a national laughing stock by now if you'd have won. Of course a ficus plant could have beaten you in the general, but you get my drift.

Phony arguments, false logic, and goofy assumptions. You can't seem to get anything out of your keyboard without relying on these stupid crutches.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home