I am not George Bush

That's a pretty good line, and while it may be true in most respects, like, say, the names on the birth certificates, much of their lives, political and otherwise, are so similar that they could both be the same character in Oliver Stone's largely fictionalized new movie about W. Or is it about McPain?

Both are political opportunists whose platforms change with what they think it will take to get elected. Often, McCain's sole purpose in distancing himself from Bush (though he backs the war and the tax policies he once voted against) is purely where the polls say such a stance will put him.

Both spouted the "we will be greeted as liberators" crap, but now say they knew all along it would be a long, difficult process.

Both have associated with - and McCain was even reprimanded for it - shady, convicted fundraisers.

Both have defended contributing CEOs who run their companies into the ground, bail out under golden parachutes, and then deny any accountability to their shareholders. (and both like to use the term "accountability" when it comes to $28,000/year teachers!)

Both are third generation prodigies who squandered every opportunity provided them by their privileged births and yet, in spite of the failures in their wake, always seemed to end up better off than they were before the screw-up, due not to their own abilities to land on their feet (neither of them usually did) but rather because of their fathers' and grandfathers' stature.

Both have histories of drug or alcohol influenced, occasionally violent, womanizing episodes they rarely speak of these days. In fact, McCain lost all favor with the Reagans when he divorced his first wife, although that didn't stop him from invoking Uncle Ronnie on the campaign trail. Nancy's endorsement of McCain, long after he was named the party's candidate was a brutally limp, "Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party." (and he STILL claims he's a Reagan Republican!) (and to be fair on this aspect, Bush seems to have at least put his marital life in order)

Both have, at least at some points in their careers, alternately spoken out against and in favor of campaign finance laws, negative campaigning, deregulation of industry, smaller government and balanced budgets.

Both used their fathers' influence to map out their military careers. McCain used his father's influence to actually participate in a war that Bush used his father's influence to avoid. But both were self serving motivations. McCain saw his quickly fading chance to gain command in the Navy rapidly slipping by unless he somehow parlayed his less than stellar flying record into a combat mission in Vietnam. (At that point, he'd succeeded only in destroying two U.S. Navy planes, and, to be fair, he would later even that record out by destroying two parked Russian MiGs) Most pilots lose that privilege after destroying the first U.S. plane. McCain got two chances and a shot at some medal-worthy missions after that.

To be fair to Bush, he was apparently a better pilot than McCain, but (and to be fair to McCain) due to Bush's cushy assignment to a plane that would never be deployed in Vietnam, we'll never really know) To be fair to McCain, he fulfilled his enlistment and has the paperwork to prove it... a rather long, though undistinguished Navy career compared to Bush's prematurely-ended-without-documentation Air National Guard Career. So yeah, there are some significant differences when it comes to military records to balance out some of the striking similarities. In fact, McCain's record almost makes Bush seem like the honorable one.

Both got into grad school - McCain to War College and Bush; Harvard - in spite of very poor academic performance, due to their pedigrees. In spite of these privileges, both would always suffer the Oedipal curse of never living up to their fathers' examples. And both would parlay their mediocre (at best) military histories to a base of voters who will believe anything the right candidate tells them as long as it sounds macho and especially if it involves fighter planes or Alaskan babes who shoot large animals.

McCain's Navy history really sheds some light on his true character. If you ask him, or listen to his campaign, he is a hero for having ignored protocol, getting shot down, and having been taken prisoner. I'll give him all due respect for surviving the prisoner part, but his previous flying record shows a history of bad decisions in the cockpit consistent with many of his colleagues' stories about how he probably should have (and his aircraft could have) avoided being shot down.

Then there's his story about how he refused the offer of early release, a story McCain has used to build his hero status. Again, all due respect for having survived that ordeal, but so did 600 fellow captives (as well as thousands of others) refuse the offer... in accordance with the Code of Conduct which forbids making deals with one's captors or making statements against the U.S., which was one of the conditions of his early release. This deal was most likely offered to all of McCain's fellow captors and all refused. Yet only one of them is touting it as a qualification to become president. (It should be noted that only one of them received medical care when his captors realized - somehow - that he was the son of a top admiral in the U.S. Navy) McCain himself admits that his POW experience provides him with "a good story to sell." Says retired Air Force Lt. Colonel John Dramesi, also a Vietnam POW, "McCain says his life changed when he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man, but he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

Dramesi's memory of McCain includes a conversation they had shortly after finishing their stints in military graduate school. (McCain the National War College thanks to dad, Dramesi; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, without a dad's influence) Both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for graduates so they can gain a little shadowing experience with more experienced military officers on duty overseas. Dramesi told McCain he chose the Middle East because he expected it would play into the nation's future. McCain told him he was crazy... that he was going to Rio where he'd "stand a better chance of getting laid."

Yep, just like he said at the convention...service above self, honor, duty, country... you know, that old chestnut.

I must disclose the source of all of this revelation - Tom Dickinson's article in March 29's Rolling Stone. And I must tell you that I'm disclosing it because much of Matt Taibbi's recent stories for the same magazine about McPalin include tons of unverified reports that come from the likes of liberal versions of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and which were later destroyed by FactCheck.org... but only after being spread throughout the liberal blog world like documented Alaskan history. But where Taibbi is fun to read due to his blatant, but spot on editorializing about how stupid we are as voters, that same editorializing warns you fairly that he's writing a column, not a hard news story. Dickinson's piece warns you fairly that if you've fallen for McCain's "I'm not George Bush" bullshit, you should really watch something besides Fox News for just a few minutes per day. Start slow... maybe with Sesame Street, and work your way up. Maybe even read a few lines from Faith of My Fathers... who am I kidding, like their president, these people don't read books!

I must also disclose that Dickinson's main source was McCain's books (Faith of My Fathers and !! (since McCain's camp never returned Dickinson's calls) in addition to interviews with former colleagues.

Over the next few days, I hope to hit on some of the other sections of Dickinson's article in order to provide his take on McCain's "character" before election day.

Dickinson cites quite a few Republicans who feel McCain simply is not suited to be president... some even question whether or not he should be a senator. My purpose in posting this is to pass on some information I've never seen before regarding a man's career I once looked favorably upon. I didn't blame Colin Powell for not seeking the presidency in 2000 cuz I wouldn't want to subject my family to this kind of scrutiny, but McCain apparently has no qualms about it even if it looks like he won't stand the test of it.

Now where is the liberal media on this seemingly easy to hit hanging curveball?

Hey, come to think of it, McCain has something in common with Obama too - they "pal around with terrorists." McCain not only co-chaired a committee with Iraqi exile, Ahmad Chalabi, he named him his foreign policy advisor.

That's not all he shares with Obama. In 1993, McCain opposed US involvement in Somalia and, get this, sponsored an amendment to CUT OFF FUNDING FOR US TROOPS there! (I'm pretty sure he said that was unpatriotic when Obama refused to vote for a bill that lacked a timeline... which is a far cry from sponsoring an amendment!) Oh, and they've both been against "trading American blood for Iraqi blood" (McCains words... Obama's vote, though, to be fair, McCain has apparently changed his mind about this too)

Oh man... this is HUGE! I can't wait until the liberal media gets hold of this stuff. It's going to be all over CNN, MSNBC, the networks, all cable except Fox. Those liberal bastards are going to be all over this. It will destroy McCain in the polls and they won't even have to bring up his womanizing like they did with ol' Bubba. When the liberal press finds out about this stuff, most of which is covered in McCain's books or has been a matter of record since the 70's.... hey, wait a minute. What the hell has happened to the vast liberal bias of our press?!

Luth,
Out