Now McCain is a War Criminal and Traitor! Sheeesh!

#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
As to your second, this is exactly the kind of subtle manipulation of fact by you (and Rush and Hannity) that is so frustrating to people who are trying to be intellectually honest, whether they are liberal or conservative. You ask whether it is coincidence that there has been a "string of commentary..." Please.

As far as I know its two, maybe three comments, and displaced considerably by both time and context. When you use the phrase "string of commnetary," you imply that the message is contrived, repeated frequently, and related (like one piece of string).

You are an intelligent person, clearly. Please don't stoop to the Limbaugh level of manipulating fact by changing the words around a bit just to suit your purpose.

I just want honest criticism of him, just as I want honest criticism of McCain. I'm so tired of both sides manufacturing issues by taking things other people say, out of context, and trying to pin the reconstructed version to the candidate, then criticisng that. Its a ploy that is just so intellectually dishonest and it kills me that it works on the feeble-minded, both on the right and the left.
Click to expand...

I missed this set of commentary - so I'm just now addressing it.

There have been 8 or more Democrats since late April who have trotted out the McCain's war experience is not a qualification for president message (since April) or who have made disparaging comments about his service. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing that out or suggesting it is a political strategy. The evil Rove himself popularized the tactic of attacking a candidate on his strength. McCain has an experience advantage over Obama here and the strategy is to attempt to remove that.

The fine line that has to be walked is to downplay the experience factor without downplaying the service or sacrifice. Clark did a clumsy job and Obama acknowledged it by calling his commentary "in artful" suggesting he didn't say it right. Obama has not addressed the experience to be president aspect of the comments.

As for this high minded, intellectually honest spiel. In your own argument above you downplay the comments (2 or 3 disconnected in time, etc.) to make your point. However, it is more than 2 to 3. Is minimizing the facts to make your point intellectually honest? (or is the "as far as I know" the escape clause)

Your commentary about the Beers article is that what he said is completely factual. Perhaps, but it lacks context and is in truth an opinion. To say McCain is "sadly limited" in understanding a country's reaction to war omits the unique perspective that only a very few have who are direct victims of the war. The suggestion was that McCain is callous about war since he didn't see the protests and live through the debate at home. The conclusion doesn't follow the circumstance. His experience could make him one of the most directly aware of the consequences of war persons anyone would every meet. Beers comments specifically opine that McCain doesn't really understand the implications of deploying troops around the world.

Likewise, you ignore the implication of the statements - McCain's military experience is completely irrelevant in a presidential run. Certainly there are aspects of his military career and experiences that are directly relevant to being POTUS. It is not a prerequisite (and no one ever suggested it was) but it is not irrelevant either. How is that implication intellectually honest? I suggest that is naive to believe that these comments are not intended to minimize a McCain strength and that it is not a conscious strategy.

Your own commentary here suffers from the very thing you accuse me of. How about a little intellectual honesty?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top