I'll happily deal with your specific examples in a moment, but let's start with this: One does not reach the rank of Lt. Cdr in the U.S. Navy without acquiring more leadership experience than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have shown. That's the rank he held when he flew A-4s; he reached Captain before he left, and the same applies, only more so.
In captivity it would be inaccurate to call him a leader per se because he was not one of the senior officers, but he showed great tenacity. He endured years of torture, some of it punishment for refusing to meet with anti-war delegations. Can Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton claim anything like that? Obviously they weren't in a position to go to the Hilton, but neither served their country or have made any kind of sacrifice for America that measures up to even one day of Hilton captivity. Heck, Obama probably hasn't even been through difficulties that would measure up to being deployed on a carrier for six months, much less being a prisoner. I would also note that no less an American than MOH recipient (and McCain cellmate) Bud Day has endorsed McCain, in part on the basis of character he saw exhibited in the Hilton.
McCain commanded a training squadron and turned it around so that it was good enough to get an MUC. Where have Hillary and Obama done anything like that with an organization?
While he was Navy Senate liaison, he was instrumental in getting funding for a carrier that the POTUS and SecNavy both opposed. How many Navy commanders beat the President at something?
And though I don't agree with all of his Senate accomplishments, his ability to get things done in the Senate shows that he is a leader there. What has Hillary or Obama gotten done in the Senate? What did Obama get done in the Illinois legislature? Moreover, where are their foreign policy credentials? Hillary didn't even have a security clearance while she was "co-president!"
Keating Five
Oh...does this sound to you like a major scandal that should prevent someone from becom ing President if they're otherwise qualified? How does it compare with Hillary's long list of real scandals and Obama's total lack of judgment in spooning Jeremiah Wright for the last twenty years and refusing to take any responsibility for it?
From wikipedia:
McCain's upward political trajectory was jolted when he became enmeshed in the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s. In the context of the Savings and Loan crisis of that decade, Charles Keating Jr.'s Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a subsidiary of his American Continental Corporation, was insolvent as a result of some bad loans. In order to regain solvency, Lincoln sold investment in a real estate venture as an FDIC-insured savings account. This caught the eye of federal regulators who were looking to shut it down. It is alleged that Keating contacted five senators to whom he made contributions. McCain was one of those senators and he met at least twice in 1987 with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.Between 1982 and 1987, McCain received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[25] In addition, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family and baby-sitter made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. After learning Keating was in trouble over Lincoln, McCain paid for the air trips totaling $13,433.[26]
Eventually the real estate venture failed, leaving many broke. Federal regulators ultimately filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln's deposits to his family and into political campaigns. The five senators came under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators. In the end, none of the senators was charged with any crime, although McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" in intervening with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[27] Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain. Bennett, a Democrat who would represent McCain in the future for another matter, wrote years later in his autobiography that it was his opinion that McCain was not dismissed from the case because without him, the investigation would have solely been against Democrats.[28]
On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[27]
Even if he was guilty as hell, this sort of thing is on Hillary's schedule before breakfast.
Gang of Fourteen
Though I was very angry about it at the time, I have to admit the Gang of 14 manuever got judges confirmed. Whether more would have been confirmed without it is speculation. What has Hillary or Obama done in the Senate?
that he said it might be necessary to stay in Iraq “a hundred years.”
Why are you parroting an Obama talking point that even The New York times, the AP and The Atlantic know is a load of crap? Suddenly I think I know why you're here...a recent arrival and you certainly have your talking points down.
For all we know he could be just as pathetic as we assume Hilary and Obama would be.
Assume? We're assuming that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be bad presidents? You're pegging the troll-o-meter.
Second, I never argued that McCain would not win the military vote.
I never said you did. I said prove that you've talked to "many" military members who share your opinion that a McCain presidency will be no better than a HillObama presidency.
Third, It is condescending to suggest that with any other commander in chief our soldiers are going to die.
Horse hockey. Its horse hockey that it's condescending, and it's horse hockey that a bad C-in-C can't screw up and get troops killed. Does Mogadishu ring a bell? Does the USS Cole? Are you actually going to tell me there was no difference between the way the troops fought and the rate they died under Johnson and Nixon?
Obama or Hilary will be scared to make a move without the advice of military command because they are well aware that they will be criticized.
Yeah, just like Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson. Is it your contention that there weren't any competent generals around to advise them?
McCain’s temper and arrogance are legendary, and he is more likely to go off half-cocked and do something tactically and strategically stupid than either democrat.
So...let me get this straight: I'm "assuming" that Hillary or Obama would be a bad president, but you aren't assuming when you decide they'd be better than McCain. What experience or accomplishments do they have that shows they would do well in a military crisis?
Fourth, are you aware that some words and phrases have more than one meaning?
Yes. I assume this relates to your "grand scheme" pronouncement. If so, I have this to say: When we are at war with a determined enemy and the lives of Americans are on the line, saying who gets elected doesn't matter is irresponsible no matter what sense you mean it in. Suck it up and take responsibility for your words.