Posted on 05/08/2008 4:40:33 PM PDT by mnehring
John McCain rarely speaks about his experiences as a POW in Vietnam, but one of his cell mates at the Hanoi Hilton on Thursday described some of the conditions and character traits that earned McCain the commendations he received for his war service.
Col. George “Bud” Day, 83, is the most decorated service man since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, with more than 70 medals. A living legend, Day was blown out of the sky two months to the day before the North Vietnamese shot down a propaganda prize, whose father and grandfather were renowned American admirals.
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.foxnews.com ...
And in your opinion McCain gets to much of a free pass here in FR, so that any article posted in which the subject is what went on during the Vietnam War is best filled with long lists of grievances about the way he voted in his political career?
Is that what you’re saying? That nobody here in FR knows the truth about John McCain so we can’t risk saying a good word about his war record lest we all suddenly forget his many numerous faults?
Is that what you mean? That we’re all too stupid, maybe, to be able to hold two contradictory thoughts in our heads at the same time, that McCain is a top RINO but that he was also a great American war hero? We can’t have that war hero stuff marring our perfect vision of him being a RINO?
Is that it?
It takes a hell of a lot of political courage to buck the party establishment in order to achieve results, such as getting an up-or-down vote on Sam Alito while preserving the traditional right of filibuster. I found that to be a remarkable example to statesmanship—not the bald partisan politicking that seems to pass for leadership among too many here.
As one poster (an anti-McCainite, even) said above, McCain is a man. He is, to be sure, a moderate in some ways (though the Conservative Union gives him an 87% rating—what do they give Hillary or Obama, btw?). To many here, that apparently makes him a liberal. I suppose, relatively speaking to some people, he might be. But what they wanted didn’t materialize and if it had, that person would be cooked in November. To me, McCain is obviously not a Buchanan conservative, or a Rockefeller republican, but a Roosevelt (as in Teddy) Republican. I think he’s fairly “Old right”—not to be confused with paleoconservative (a post-cold war phenom), except for his intention to have a vigorous foreign policy.
Perhaps we McCain supporters are a minority here, but McCain will win the election and will be an excellent President and ten times the “unifier” that Obama could ever hope to be.
Never said anything about his permanence as a war hero making things up here, but go for it.
Never said anything against his war recored. I consider him a great war hero.
Just saying his war record has nothing to do with his eligibility to be POTUS.
No.... I didn't call him a liar, nor did I infer it! Someone above suggested that McCain was famous and a hero for not accepting an early release. It has been pointed out in several other articles that releases were done under the standard code of conduct and that while some may find McCains decision to decline the offer as something special, it was just FOLLOWING ORDERS.
You SAY you revere Bud Day, but then totally DISCREDIT what he says in this article.
I didn't discredit anything. I have a lot of respect for Bud Day. I feel like I got to know a bit about him, and his honor, during the 2004 campaign while researching John Kerry and contributing to the SBVFT effort. For you to suggest that I called him a liar is utter nonsense.
Just come out with it: you dont have time for ANY military heroes who have worn the US uniform, do you?
I have great respect for military heros and everyone who serves. As such, I have little use for those who so embellish their resumes (eg John Kerry) to the extent that it no longer has any base in reality. Give credit where credit is due but lionizing someone for things that were expected of everyone, or worse--elevating it to hero status--doesn't do anyone any good.
Not to pick nits, but you imply and I infer. What you say has “implications.” I infer from what you imply.
You’re right... I was typing too fast. Thanks.
I am not a McCain supporter but reading this story does give me a lot more respect for him. He definately went through a lot and is a true military hero.
You didn’t know America sucked, L?
You need to get with the program. You’re definitely behind the power curve.
“Just saying his war record has nothing to do with his eligibility to be POTUS.”
Nothing? Nothing at all?
How about in comparison to his opponents?
From WWII onward, only Bill Clinton had no military service.
FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter served from the dem side.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush wore the uniforms of the US military.
Clinton and Obama don’t fit into the category of people willing to put on the uniform, and serve their country.
Far from “nothing” I think in the context of this election, it has a lot to do with it.
It gives him a far different perspective about the military, war, service and sacrifice.
He is far from the ideal candidate, but he is by far the best of the viable alternatives.
Thanks for posting this article.
I agree with you 100%
The idea of Obama or Hillary as Commander in Chief gives me the shivers.
I don’t agree with McCain about a lot of things but compared with the alternatives it’s a no brainer for me.
Wow, that’s a keeper.
Anyone can sign up here. Just claim you are more conservative than everyone else and start posting.
Divide and conquer is the name of the game.
bttt
“The RNC, they stole the GOP and gave it to left wing RINOS and the Whitless faction of closet liberals.”
I seem to remember we recently had primaries, whereby citizens voted their preferences from among many GOP candidates.
Hunter, Tancredo didn’t register very well, indicating there is less “demand” than many here would like, for their brand of conservatism.
Reagan spent many years, educating voters about what was going wrong, and his ideas to remedy matters.
Plus he had a charming personality and the gift of being a superb communicator. Not many like him, these days.
Which present day “conservative” has the track record that Reagan had? The ability to sell his political philosophy?
Similarly, in his day, Eisenhower used phrases like “right thinking democrats” to appeal across the political spectrum.
McCain is far from the ideal candidates, but is by far the best from among the viable candidates with a chance to win.
The GOP or the RNC go with the horses they have. When Reagan earned his way to the top, he became the party leader, setting the tone for several years into the future.
The GOP takeover of the house in 1994 was an echo of the Reagan successes. And since, it has been less, and less a function of Reagan, and more a function of who the horses emerged.
Gingrich was a big factor for awhile, but gets little or no respect on FR, these days. Yet he is one of only a few that can articulate conservatism.
GW Bush has been a lousy advocate for conservatism, partly because he is not consistently conservative, but more importantly because he is a lousy speaker.
He is the leader of the GOP. We elected him and re-elected him. So when you refer to the RNC and the GOP, think GW Bush.
Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. On balance far better than the alternative would have been.
I get the impression if many had it to do over, they would have sat out 2000 and 2004, because GW Bush wasn’t the perfect, ideal conservative.
Because by golly they would never compromise their principles and vote for anybody that wasn’t 100 percent hard core conservative, even against an outright socialist.
Obama is not a boy; he’s a ~punk~.
[and where I live, that is *the* worst thing you can call a male...it comprises a huge list of “unspoken connotations”...each of them worse than the last]
Love your mosaic, BTW.
his war record has nothing to do with his eligibility to be POTUSAnd I'm just saying, your stating the obvious, your stating what's been stated in FR about a billion times. The posted article did NOT say that his war record makes him a worthy presidential candidate. I'm not saying that. No one on this thread is saying that. But you and others must make sure that anytime McCain's war record is even mentioned that it only be mentioned along with the familiar drumbeat of reasons why he's not a good presidential choice. I agree with those reasons. I disagree with the reflexive need of many in FR to repeat them ad-infinitum, even when they're off-topic. Even when it's practically rude to do so.
There are some in FR who just can't stand to hear about McCain's war record and when it's brought up must instantly start with the friggin' LIST. I'm not saying you're one of them; I'm just saying that's the way it is around here.
She's bizzare and un-feminine. Can you imagine this critter in the White House?
Being married to her says lots about Hussein Obama
“But I will not sit here and read you low-lifes degrade the service of a great American hero.”
That was not my intent. As a matter of fact I wrote that I respect McCain for his service to our country. Since folks seem to think I was showing disrespect, well then I apologise to Senator McCain(Thank you for your service) and to members of Free Republic.
And I’m sorry if I misunderstood or misconstrued your post. I did get a little heated last night. I meant what I said, but if I was wrong to direct it to you then I’m sorry.
Things can get heated around here, but that’s a good thing, as long as the underlying intentions are good, which for 99% of freepers I think is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.