Politico's Martin said McCain has "reluctantly allowed his campaign" to highlight Vietnam experience -- but he showed little reluctance in 2000
SUMMARY: Comparing Sen. John McCain's 2008 Republican presidential campaign to his failed 2000 bid, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin stated: "There is another reason why McCain's fared better this time -- he reluctantly allowed his campaign to spotlight his 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton." However, numerous reports in 2000 noted the prominent role McCain's experience as a POW in Vietnam played in his first presidential campaign.
In a February 4 article posted on Politico.com, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin compared Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 2008 Republican presidential campaign to his failed bid for the nomination in 2000 by asserting: "There is another reason why McCain's fared better this time -- he reluctantly allowed his campaign to spotlight his 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton." Martin continued: "In television and radio commercials as well as mail pieces, McCain strategists such as ad-man Mark McKinnon have portrayed the searing images of a battered young lieutenant commander being held captive in a waking nightmare." But contrary to Martin's suggestion that McCain did not "spotlight" his military experience and years as a POW in Vietnam, as noted in numerous reports in 2000, McCain's experience as a POW in Vietnam played a prominent role in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and was used in his campaign advertisements and stump speeches that year.
In a February 4 Time magazine article, James Carney wrote that "McCain's first campaign was about character and biography much more than issues" and noted the role that McCain's Vietnam experience played in his bid for the presidency in 2000:
But Conservative and Independent voters have the same question about McCain: What kind of Republican is he? In 2000, when the U.S. was at peace and the economy was luxuriating in the frothy end days of the first Internet boom, McCain's first campaign was about character and biography much more than issues. McCain was the authentic hero, the fighter pilot who had been shot down over Hanoi and spent more than five years as a prisoner of war. He was the reformer and the straight talker, the rare politician who -- perhaps because of his experience as a POW-- wasn't going to compromise his principles or hold his tongue to please his party. He was also, at his core, still the rowdy, runty, red-tempered plebe who finished near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy despite an IQ of 133. McCain became a symbol in 2000 of courage and candor. Few took close looks at his policy positions. It was almost enough to get him the Republican nomination.
A January 31, 2000, article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (accessed via the Nexis database) describing McCain's use of his experience as a POW in Vietnam reported:
McCain, who once downplayed his prisoner-of-war experiences in Vietnam, now emphasizes his military service. He pleaded with veterans at one stop yesterday to "go on one more mission" to help him win. A new campaign ad says that he is the only one in the campaign with the military experience to be president.
An item in the February 11, 2000, National Review's "Washington Bulletin" reported on the negative attack ads featured during the campaign 2000 Republican presidential campaign and noted:
Today, for instance, the McCain campaign sent out a press release accusing the Bush campaign of making a 14-year-old boy cry with its negative "push polling." This same release announced a new ad suggesting that, just as the communists tortured McCain in Vietnam, now the special interests are "coming after him here in South Carolina because John McCain will take the government away from the special interests and give it back to you."
In a February 20, 2000, Washington Post article (accessed via Nexis), Howard Kurtz reported that "[i]n Michigan, McCain has run ads that highlight his background as a Navy pilot shot down in Vietnam. The ads attack the 'special interests' and declare McCain 'ready to lead.' "
Furthermore, a "Campaign 2000 ad watch" item in the February 25, 2000, Los Angeles Times (accessed via Nexis) featured the text of the McCain ad titled "Leader," which highlighted his experience as a POW in Vietnam:
Text: "A young Navy pilot who volunteered for duty in Vietnam, John McCain was shot down over Hanoi. McCain refused early release from prison, where he suffered repeated beatings and was held for 5 1/2 years.
He returned home just as devoted to his country, taking on the establishment. (McCain on camera) 'I'll give the government back to you, and I promise you that.' (voice-over) Ready to be president and leader of the free world. John McCain -- character courage -- for president."
The Boston Globe (accessed via Nexis) reported on March 1, 2000, that "John McCain ran a campaign ad about the Christmas sermon he wrote for fellow prisoners of war in North Vietnam 30 years ago." McCain also reportedly ran a television ad featuring Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "accusing [then-President Bill] Clinton of betraying the military" and "mention[ing] McCain's time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam."
From Martin's February 4 Politico.com article:
For starters, and to state the obvious, McCain has benefited and continues to benefit from running in a multi-candidate field. In every state he's won, his rivals have split the conservative, more ideologically-oriented vote enabling McCain to succeed in a plurality race.
The past eight years have brought other differences, however, that have seemed to accentuate the core McCain.
First, peace isn't taken for granted. A down-home governor with a familiar last name sold well in a time of tranquility. A scarred (literally) old Navy salt may be more reassuring in a time of peril.
The personality and strategy of McCain's chief rival this time around also have something to do with it.
"Whether it's fair or not, [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney can come off as overly calculated," notes Dan Schnur, who like [Todd] Harris worked for McCain in 2000, but is unaligned this campaign. "McCain couldn't ask for a better mirror opposite."
There is another reason why McCain's fared better this time -- he's reluctantly allowed his campaign to spotlight his 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton.
In television and radio commercials as well as mail pieces, McCain strategists such as ad-man Mark McKinnon have portrayed the searing images of a battered young lieutenant commander being held captive in a waking nightmare.
"We had to wrestle with him to let us use that POW footage," notes McKinnon, who worked on both of President Bush's campaigns. "But this is a different time and a different election. And [the footage] matches to the narrative that we're trying to tell about McCain -- that he has the fortitude and character to deal with the face of terror."
So the unique circumstances of this election appear to have aligned to allow McCain, despite his obvious flaws on issues with the party base, to now be on the verge of seizing the nomination through the strength of his character-based appeal.
Now his sympathizers hope that it will only get easier in November, with even fewer ideologically-oriented voters coming to the polls.
"The general election is nothing if not ultimately a personality contest," quips Harris.
This didn't occur to me until just now. I've been listening to some am radio lately, getting their take on McCain vs. The Real Conservatives. Rush Limbaugh often refers to Kerry as "John Kerry, who served in Vietnam", as an obvious dig at Kerry's perceived milking of his military record.
Although Limbaugh is attacking Mccain pretty regularly, I don't hear any denigration of his military record.I'd guess that if McCain is the nominee,and it looks that way, all of these righty talkers threatening to support Hillary if McCain's nominated will fall in line and start describing McCain as a real conservative as well as a superhuman war hero.
Not likely. McCain will limp along without the support of many conservative talkers, if they somehow cheerlead for him this fall after dumping all over him now, they will look even more ridiculous.
They could care less who wins, although they probably prefer Hillary as a boost to their ratings and relevance. It's their paychecks and syndication contracts that they are concerned about more than some silly election.
I know what you're saying Tommy, and it could happen either way. I just think the lure of "being on the winning team", and the importance of popularity to these guys will override any principles.
We're both just guessing, but it'll be interesting to see what happens.
There’ll be as many, if not more, negative ads for each ad McCain produces that touts his military experience. I hope Democrats can beat the Republicans at their own game from all they learned with Kerry in 2004. There is already the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain website that mimics the Swift Boat Ads and disputes dozens of questionable McCain “facts”.
The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign cash, reports that MILITARY DONORS FAVOR ANTIWAR CANDIDATES. In 4th quarter 2007 of money-raising from donors in the military, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000 only behind Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who collected at least $212,000 from them. NOT a good McCain "talking point" here, I'd say.
There are some strong allegations against McCain’s story of his experience in Nam. According to the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain website Ted Sampley, a Vietnam Veteran and former Green Beret, issued a CHALLENGE to John McCain "If you can show us that the information presented in our mailer is untruthful . . . we will Stand Down" This CHALLENGE was issued during an interview with INSIDE EDITION on January 17, 2008.
All I can say is, We’ll see… We’ll see
Swiftboating stunts are crap no matter who is pulling them and who they are used against.
There's hundreds of reasons to dislike McCain and arguments against voting for him to be made. Why play the same games that were used in 2004?
TOMMY,
I don't know if I want to grab you by your arms and shake you crazily for believing that the right-wing pundits would care at all about looking 'ridiculous' or begin to cry upon the realization that your right that the right-wing pundits couldn't care less about the election as opposed to having sturdy legs to demand contract extensions upon a possible Hillary presidency?
Limbaugh, despite his lofty claims, is concerned about Limbaugh #1. He flourished and gained much of his popularity and relevance among the rightwing when Bill was in office.
He is not stupid. He nows sees, much to his dismay, that his influence is much less than his ego will allow, and he knows that a Hillary presidency will vault him upwards again, at least in his reasoning, as the disaffected rightwing looks to him to save them from doom and gloom once again from the evil clutches of the Clintons. His mouth is watering at that prospect.
I think Limbaugh will do what he always does, put a ridiculous spin on McCain winning the nomination to show that he was right all along. You know the liberal media conspiracy to get McCain the nomination so that no matter who wins in november a liberal will be president he keeps railing about daily. Then he will give a long winded speech how its with a heavy heart he must endorse McCain to prevent a greater evil yada yada.... But somehow he will try to say like he always does that this is exactly what he said would happen. He is psychic, it's one of those talents he has "on loan from God."
While I absolutely agree that Sen. McCain's Military Service can be listed as a qualification to being Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, I don't think it's for the reason that everybody assumes. I'm under the impression that Mr. McCain has himself characterized both his time as a Naval Cadet at Annapolis, and his Active Duty as a Naval Aviator serving in Vietnam... I believe he has referred to himself in those days as a "jerk".
True.
And while that does not in any way diminish his Military Record, it points out to us what we already know: That not everyone who wears the Uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces, possesses all the qualities and abilities of a Perfect Soldier.
I've always interpreted Mr. McCain's honesty in referring to himself as a "jerk" in those days, as just that kind of admission: "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Perfect Soldier or a perfect anything"
It's the kind of talk only Honest men make.
And I do not doubt Mr. McCain's Honesty, no more than I would ever doubt his Military Service.
The Military qualification of Mr. McCain's that truly impresses me, is that he is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.
If you were to ever cite anything as a qualification to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, you'd cite that.
And I'd add my confusion here, that I don't exactly understand how being a POW is considered a qualification of some kind. I understand and more than appreciate Mr. McCain being a Prisoner Of War... I just fail to see what it is a qualification to. On the other hand, as I said, I am impressed to the highest degree, that Mr. McCain is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.
Actually, it's exactly the kind of thing phony "Oh I'm not a hero, stop calling me a hero just because I...." candidates like McCain use to endlessly remind people of their service while claiming that they don't want people to use that service in considering their vote- which of course is exactly what they want people to do. When John McCain can get through a speech without telling me that he was a POW and without using the term "foot soldier" to remind me that he was a Reagan Loyalist, I'll give him a little credit for being sincere.
By the way, his latest commercial is downright funny- "as a POW in Vietnam, John McCain was inspired by the Reagan Revolution.." what the hell? Reagan was the ex-Gov of California when McCain was a POW. It doesn't even make sense- it just serves to remind us that McCain was a POW, a point McCain has "reluctantly" agreed to make, of course.
"As a boy in Connecticut, John McCain was inspired by the Reagan film career, sitting through multiple showings of 'That Hagen Girl,' 'John Loves Mary' and 'Bedtime for Bonzo.'"
One of my favorite books is "The fifty worst films of all time", which is hopelessly outdated now, unfortunately. "That Hagen Girl" was listed in it. "Bedtime for Bonzo" just speaks for itself.
I wonder what we can surmise about McCain with this nugget of information. Were his politics influenced by Reagan because he was a fan of his movies (even though Reagan was a Democrat when he made them)? Does he take efforts to praise any aspect of Reagan's life that he can, whether he means it or not?
Or does he just have bad taste in movies?
I'm not denigrating anyone's service, and you know it. I'm pointing out McCain's hypocricy. I don't believe that being a veteran gives one a free pass to say anything he wants without criticism.
When John McCain is lying or exaggerating, it's fair to point that out. If you can't see his lies and exaggerations because you are too blinded by his medals, you are the one who's the blind ideologue here.
"Reagan was the ex-Gov of California when McCain was a POW."
That's hilarious. I wonder how many people will miss the obvious timeline discrepancy there, that McCain was released from captivity late in the Nixon administration - hardly the atmosphere of a Republican revolution. I guess it doesn't work as well to say he was inspired by Tricky Dick.
Of course, that ad is a double-whammy. It mentions his POW status and identifies him with the almighty God of Conservatism at the same time. Why doesn't he just dub himself the "Hellcat of the Navy" and get it done with?
As for Limbaugh and his drooling acolytes, it will be interesting to see where they end up. Part of me thinks that Rush dances to the GOP's tune, and will fall in line when the time comes. It's been fairly well documented that his show became a defacto infomercial for the GOP after he spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom during Papa Bush's term. He is no stranger to hypocrisy and dishonesty, so I doubt that he's worried about looking ridiculous; the addlebrained sycophants who populate his audience won't even notice.
On the other hand, Tommy is correct in pointing out that his popularity skyrocketed when he had the Clintons to whine about. A Hillary presidency would be a gold mine for Hate Radio.
We shall see.
Nerzog,
You make valid points, and I will certainly admit if I am wrong about this - but I cannot believe that Rush will support McCain in the fall, after all his diatribes and years of opposing him. I hear you about his dishonesty and hypocrisy, but that is usually reserved for this highly partisan swipes at liberals, which his audience does eat up and never demands facts or backup.
But in this case, they would be all over him for such an obvious flip-flop, especially considering it's his own party, his own conservatives, his own reputation among them.
But you're right, we shall see.
My take on this is that Rush doesn't have listeners as much as he has followers. They'll direct their rage in whatever direction he points.
Most of the people I've known who have bought into the Limbaugh line are the kind of people who have to be led to a conclusion before they'll have one.
The only kind thing I can think of to say about them is that they do seem more intelligent than the average "Great American" who listens to Hannity.
It won't be a flip flop. I imagine it will go something like this:
"My friends, I spent a troubled weekend thinking about the decision our nation faces this coming November. I had to cancel a game of golf and couldn't even touch my cigars. You see I received a telephone call late Friday night from some very important members in the Republican Party and they reminded me what is really at stake in this election. We can't count on Congress to be able to thwart the excesses of another Clinton Presidency the way we did in the 90s. As bad as it was for our country then, just imagine what it would have been like without Gingrich and company stopping the socialist-fascist Clinton machine. I wouldn't even be here talking to you right now because you know they would have made my show illegal if they could have. Well, those are the stakes we face now. And although McCain is not my my first choice, he is all that stands between us and total control by the Clintons. And you all know what that means. Now let's go to the phones..."
Moon, that's one possibility I was thinking of, the support out of necessity against evil.Very possible, as Rush doesn't like to straight-out fold on these things, but I have another guess as to how it goes;
After the dust settles from the primaries a bit, and McCain re-adjusts his image, Rush and the other GOP spokespeople start to realize that the canny McCain has been playing to the center in response to the baseless attacks leveled against the GOP during Bush's terms, an ingenious political strategy.
Somebody make a note of this thread, we'll check it in 5 or 6 months (maybe around the 4th of July) & see if we're all way off. ;0)
I think Rush is praying for a Hillary victory, he must be bored out of his mind with carrying water for an unpopular administration instead of trashing one. Rush would love to spend four years battering Hillary every day - it would be great for his ratings and much more fun for him.
So I don't see him moving in McCain's direction. He'll win points for sincerity with his idiot listeners, and he'll get what he wants more than anything else- the Clintons back in the White House.
NERZOG: I know I usually see eyey to eye with you on most issues. But... I’ve read it elsewhere at this site and have to agree – Democrats will never win another election if they keep trying to take “the high road” and refuse to “stoop” to play by the same rules as Republicans. It might make you feel good to say “at least we didn’t….” after a loss – but we don’t need “feel good” – we need a victory.
It’s not even enough to wait for them to take the first hit below the belt so we can say “well they did it, too”. History tells us, this is not enough – they’ll just come up with an even lower blow. We already KNOW they’re going to hit below the belt, so we may as well take the first shot.
If there is any hint of truth in anything at the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain website, The Dems should exploit it for all it’s worth – especially if McCain thinks he can use his Vietnam “experience” as his key to the presidency and starts pumping out ads that glorify his service.
I am in no way a supporter of John McCain's run for the presidency. But you probably know that.
I don't know much about the group in your link but from what I've read on Ted Sampley, I wouldn't believe a word he says.
He's been alleged to have profited from the POW/MIA cause he professes to hold so dear. He was not a POW.
Here is a link about this Ted Sampley character.
http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm
As others have said on this thread, there are many reasons to work to see that McCain is not elected president. Anyone who resorts to using this kind of thing to try to defeat him is only going to have people rally behind him.
I have to admit I spent no time at the website, nor did any investigating of anyone scruples. I do know that, in politics, anything that hurts the other guy is usually given a nod and a wink. I’ll stop putting a link to the site anywhere until or unless I feel comfortable doing so.
But, just like I said the first time that I mentioned this site, “IF the allegations are true” - I still would see nothing wrong with bringing them up. As for now, you guys are starting to make me feel a little dirty. Think I need a shower.:)
Thanks for the link.
"Reluctantly? Oh yeah, McCain has reluctantly decided to mention his experience as a POW in Vietnam in every single speech he makes and in every single debate, sometimes more than once.
Yeah, McCain's been really "reluctant" to play the war hero card. About as reluctant as Giuliani was to play the 9/11 card.
Yes, it's almost surely true that McCain doesn't use his POW status to his advantage most of the time. I don't think Kerry opened every Senate speech with a Vietnam reference, or Edwards with a "son of a mill worker" reference either. Giuliani might have very well wandered around New York daily muttering about 9/11 though.
This is what politicians do. I don't blame McCain for playing something to his advantage, you have to use what you have in order to win. That's the nature of the game. Kerry wanted people to identify him as patriotic, Edwards wanted people to identify him with the "common man".
This is the man who called Falwell an "agent of intolerance" and then spoke at his university. He's not some sort of maverick politician whose principles take precedence over his desire to be president. Bush smeared the hell out of him in 2000, and they acted like best friends afterwards. He's not that forgiving or that humble, he just doesn't want to alienate the party base.
Welcome to the world of politics, politico. Take notes.
McCain's the only candidate in this race to actually have served the country---several years in confinement and tortured as a result. No, he's not the son of a millworker, nor does he have the ever impressive accomplishment of holding the office of first lady, but I think nonetheless that it's a plus on his side. Of course standing alone it doesn't qualify him to be president, but those experiences certainly must have been life-shaping events which he can look back on with pride because he survived the ordeals.
In that regard, does anyone not think that actual experience in war is an attribute when considering whether to take this country to war?
And how does anyone know that he's not "reluctant" to recall his prison years. Do people think he looks back on them with fond memories, like Hillary or Obama reflecting on their tenure at harvard? Having to do it all over again, I don't think he'd check-in at the hanoi hilton just so he could later brag about his experiences.
All the candidates brag about their history of public service and commitment to their country. And McCain should, if he pleases, brag that his service has been more than sitting in oak offices in washington.
"In that regard, does anyone not think that actual experience in war is an attribute when considering whether to take this country to war?"
You would certainly hope so. That is in fact one of my primary objections to him, that he suffered for an unnecessary war, then went on to cheerlead for more unnecessary war in both Iraq and Iran. In my mind that's a bit like Reagan getting shot and not taking a second look at his views on gun control, a sign that he's not learning from experience.
"And how does anyone know that he's not "reluctant" to recall his prison years. Do people think he looks back on them with fond memories, like Hillary or Obama reflecting on their tenure at harvard? Having to do it all over again, I don't think he'd check-in at the hanoi hilton just so he could later brag about his experiences."
Like I said above, he's perfectly welcome to use his past to his advantage, that's the way the game is played. He is probably reluctant to mention it most of the time, but once the Presidency is on the line everything changes (like the Falwell example). As for checking in at the Hanoi Hilton, of course he wouldn't choose that. But since it's happened, he's going to use it to his advantage when necessary, making the best out of a bad situation. Again, nothing wrong with that, just that he's falsely portrayed as someone who wouldn't do so.
"All the candidates brag about their history of public service and commitment to their country. And McCain should, if he pleases, brag that his service has been more than sitting in oak offices in washington."
I would definitely agree, as much as I don't care for him, and I hope others would agree as well. I think most of us are just tired of the "maverick" facade this plays into.
You would certainly hope so. That is in fact one of my primary objections to him, that he suffered for an unnecessary war, then went on to cheerlead for more unnecessary war in both Iraq and Iran. In my mind that's a bit like Reagan getting shot and not taking a second look at his views on gun control, a sign that he's not learning from experience.
I see your point, and realize that other vietnam vets disagree with his stances entirely. But still, actual experience in such serious matters lends more substance to his views. As noted on numerous occasions, politicians likely would take war more seriously had they actually served, or if they have children serving. McCain has both, and that's admirable.
For the record, I don't agree with his positions on iraq either, but I'm not persuaded that he's some kind of warmonger. (And I know you say anything like that).
I agree that serving lends credibility. If that wasn't true I don't think we ever would have heard about the SBVT. Kerry's military background as compared to Bush's was a major factor for that very reason. McCain can definitely use it as a selling point.
I think he's gone well past the stage where it was politically advantageous to support the war, so I have to think that he genuinely wants to continue in Iraq and maybe even go into Iran (if that's even logistically possible at this point). His debacle in the Iraqi marketplace, "bomb bomb Iran", his "100 years" comment about permanent bases are all far out of line with the vast majority of the public. Whether that's a warmonger or not, I think we've agreed it's a problem.
Unfortunately, the so-called swing voters don't pay close attention to politics, and they won't even remember the obscene things the Republicans did to Kerry four years ago. Hannity and Limbaugh and O'Reilly will wring their hands and hyperventilate about how the "Liberal Democrats" hate the military and disrespect veterans...yada yada yada. Look for "eyewitnesses" who saw Democrats spitting on Vietnam veterans to suddenly appear on these talk shows. It will be an exact reverse of the 2004 election; service in Vietnam will be McCain's biggest asset, and the fact that his Democratic opponent has no military service will disqualify him/her from protecting us from the turrists. Mark my words...Karl Rove is writing the commercials as we speak.
Not to change the topic of the thread, but can someone, preferably a conservative poster, briefly tell me why staunch conservatives don't like McCain? I'm just curious.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
I read this article today. I think she lays out some reasons why right wing media figures don't like him, such as hannity and limbaugh . . .