Well, we Pittsburgh bloggers, we're political doggers, and we're loathed everywhere we go.
We write about beauty and we write about truth
for no pay, really you know.
We write on all kind of bills, it gives us all kind of thrills
but the thrill we've never known
Is the thrill that'll getcha when you get your picture
on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Or a cover story in the Rolling Stone. This one's called "Make-Believe Maverick" and it's about John McCain. Go read it.
Now.
(Apologies to Dr Hook and the Medicine Show)
9 comments:
i had heard this was coming out.
yet, it's amazing how a gimmick can work.
"mavrick!" ha!
I am somewhere between 50% and 665 through the article. I paused for, among other things, about 40 minutes of Meet the Press. I think it was on their that someone said real mavericks don't walk around announcing, nor would they want to be part of something called a "Team of Mavericks", as Sarah Palin put it. Maybe she/the McCain campaign wanted to evoke Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwins' book.
Team of Mavericks! LOL That's a contradiction! LOL!
Yes McCain was a POW. So what? Most of this country has family members part of some war or another.
From what I understand, that if you're captured by the enemy, it's your own fault reguardless of circumstance, and it's your duty to attempt to escape. Soldiers are ashamed that they allowed themselves to be captured.
McCain is just trying to compete with his daddy's success. It's sad that the possible next "ahem" leader of our country only wants the job because of personal psychological problems. Reminds me of Hitler.
Do you really want someone that finished bottom of his class to lead hundreds of millions of people?
But don't forget the NBA team; the Dallas Mavericks! ;-p
Ah, thanks for the heads up and reminder. I've been waiting for this edition to come out. Definitely need to get it.
Well, Palin and McCain are starting to choke in the 'playoffs' (i.e. general election) just like Dirk & Co., so they've got that in common, at least.
I linked that article in a big E-mail to everyone I know, It is a very well written article that everyone needs to read. People need to read the truth about the real McCain.
While I'm inclined to believe most of what was in the article, I wish it hadn't been written. I didn't like what we did to John Kerry's war experience -- I think it's harder to accept someone's Purple Hearts without questioning whether or not they were really deserved -- and I don't like how we are now picking through John McCain's POW experience -- I think it's harder now to respect a POW experience without being skeptical of how the person stood up to interrogation. If some veterans are intent to exaggerate or aggrandize their experiences, that's fine with me. I think it's on us to bear in mind that they may be telling fish stories, or may not be, and endure our skepticism quietly. This cheapens everyone involved.
Bram, we're electing a President. Part of John McCain's story about himself is that he is a man of honor, that he has served with honor, and we can trust him to act in our best interests as President because of his honor.
I think the people who read the piece in the Rolling Stone will consider the source and decide accordingly. But I think it is valid to ask how being a POW qualifies you to be President. It is not, in and of itself, a selfless act.
I don't think that anyone wanted to elect John Kerry because of his service in Vietnam. I also think that anyone who believed the Swift Boat for Truth people were probably inclined against Kerry anyway. Kerry's service was interesting, he was heroic on at least a couple of occasions, but when he had the chance to get out he took it. I think he didn't feel like taking excessive chances.
If there is an element of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in this Rolling Stone article, at least the article has an author, has cited his sources and is available for subpoena. Of course there is no time for a libel trial, but I am sure the Republicans are doing what they can to get sources to recant their stories, or to impeach the credibility of the sources.
Post a Comment