“But I think “Eyepatch McCain” is needless and unwarranted (even if Tucker started it). If any man (or woman) has a disability, including of course from serving in the military, adding a direct reference to that in a derogatory nickname, especially, is IMO poor form.
From a political perspective, it is also probably counterproductive.”
I disagree. It’s a name that perfectly describes him. He’s a scheister. And like McCain, he has and will use his service as a shroud to protect himself. Whenever we questioned McCain’s VOTES IN CONGRESS, we were immediately inundated with McCain’s capture by the North Vietnamese.
And it was the same with Max Cleland, etc.
I don’t care about the shrouds politicians like to use. I pay attention to words and actions.
Y’all quoting my second sentence in disagreement are leaving out the context of my first and/or third sentences:
“Crenshaw is a creepy Deep State spook and I’d like to see him knocked off by a good candidate in a primary.
But I think “Eyepatch McCain” is needless and unwarranted (even if Tucker started it). If any man (or woman) has a disability, including of course from serving in the military, adding a direct reference to that in a derogatory nickname, especially, is IMO poor form.
From a political perspective, it is also probably counterproductive.”
I disagree. It’s a name that perfectly describes him. He’s a scheister. And like McCain, he has and will use his service as a shroud to protect himself.
All true but we are going to need the votes of a lot of weak and stupid GOP voters to remove him. The kind of folks that take offense to “Eyepatch McCain” no matter how warranted it is.