A chink in McCain's armor...
McCain's Navy record given scrutiny here.
posted by Brian at 3:55 PM
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Previous Posts
- Global Migration: Status of S. Korean Migrant Workers
- The Birds Cough!
- Global Migration: Tangential clarificatory observa...
- Another Thought for the Day...
- Seoul Walking
- Namdaemun Is Burning
- Global Migration: Am I a post-American?
- An update on protesting in America:
- Of Protesting
- Seoul Metro, Line 2
5 Comments:
What relevance does McCain's military record have for the upcoming election? Surely he should be judged on what he intends to do while at the helm of the country and not what he did 30 years ago? Is this not a prime example of negative campaigning, something which should be discouraged rather than encouraged in my opinion
Um, I guess it has almost no relevance except insofar as it is impossible to judge what someone will do in the future without looking at what he/she has done in the past. But, who said that my post had anything to do with the election?
Hmmm. Sure you should look at what people have done in the past, but people change, learn from their mistakes and have different priorities as they get older. Like the financial ad's say 'Past performance is no indicator of future success' and I think that too much emphasis is placed on a politicians past, particularly in the US.
I also wonder if you would have made the post if McCain wasn't the presidential nominee (he is right?)or if there wasn't going to be an election.
Ok, to be honest, I only posted that link because McCain was the nominee. I don't officially condone negative campaigning, but it sure is fun.
But I do wonder about your take on a politician's "past performance." I really can't think of a better way to judge a candidate than to look at their past record. How do you do it in the UK? Take the man at his word and offer him a clean slate? In this case, it seems as if you are suggesting that past performance is no indicator of future failure, and, while that may be technically true, it sure doesn't make me real gung-ho for electing a candidate with a history of failure. All of that being said, I guess that the fact that, forty-odd years ago, the candidate became a Navy pilot through nepotism rather than merit and then went on to crash no fewer than five Navy aircraft should not necessarily weigh heavily in our judgement of his governing potential. That is, of course, unless his prime claim to legitimacy is and always has been his military service...
I had hoped to wiki or google some stuff to make sure I had my facts straight but I haven't had time. So I would say that while we don't necessarily give our politicians a clean slate we certainly don't seem to put the same emphasis on a politicians past as happens in the US. For instance Tony Blair was elected in 1997 by coming up with 'New Labour' - a party that had significantly shifted away from its previous and historical left wing, socialist roots. People didn't look at Blair and think well in 1983 when he first entered politics he wanted Britain to withdraw from the EEC (fore-runner of the EU), he was in favour of unilateral disarmament and had very socialist ideals. They voted for him based on the polices he claimed he (the labour party) was going to introduce. Going back further in time Churchill lost the 1955(?) election and I can't imagine it was based on his past record. I'm sure similar things have happened throughout the 20th century too - but maybe it's because we have party politics at the general election (though sadly it is becoming more of a personality contest) so people care more about the polices that each party present rather than looking at the individuals personal history.
As for McCain in this case. I'd wonder whether the important thing is how well he did in the military or the fact that he was prepared to serve his country and potentially risk his life fighting for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home