<p>“McCain’s 1st wife had the accident on the same day he became a POW. He never knew of it until he came back.”</p>
<p>It’s true he didn’t know about it, but it happened in 1969. He was captured in late 1967.</p>
<p>“His 1st wife harbors no ill to him, and his adopted children (hers still call him Dad and is on the trail with him) —unlike both of Guiliani’s kids.”</p>
<p>This is true, and I certainly agree it’s better than the alternative.</p>
<p>“They were newlyweds when he left, it is unrealistic to believe that this was an easy decision.”</p>
<p>I think they had been married about a year before he was deployed, so this is a reasonable point. However, they didn’t really make a mutual decision. He left her for another, younger woman who wasn’t physically disabled and wasn’t overweight. I suppose there might have been blame on her part, too, though.</p>
<p>I agree that this is old news, and is only of marginal relevance to his current abilities and policies. However, if we are going to be repeatedly reminded of his bravery and integrity as a POW, I think this is part of that story.</p>
<p>I have to agree with b&p’s reading of the situation. Even without the disability, it would be very difficult for McCain’s first wife to alter the role she had had to assume during his captivity. And years of captivity and ill-treatment do change a person. I know many examples of this.</p>
<p>" I don’t think you can chalk his first marriage up to a rash romantic oath."</p>
<p>He’s a young brash officer who pledges to take care of friend’s wife and children in case something goes wrong. He in fact does. He in fact then tries to make the marriage work. I’m not sure it’s easier to chalk up McCain’s marriage to being a philandering jerk. It looks like McCain came back, tried to make things work, failed because it wasn’t on solid ground to begin with(seriously, there were plenty of Vietnam era weddings that never should have happened) and then found a new wife whom he shared a lengthy relationship with. One thing is certain…all of his kids are part of his family. His oldest kids are terribly close with his youngest. That DOES say something about McCain as a parent.</p>
<p>I’m not seeing how McCain’s mistake(a mistake made by many Vietnam vets) is greater than say Clinton’s inability to stay committed to one woman.(Yes, I’m aware that you’re not arguing that) But what exactly then are you arguing? How does marrying a friend’s wife in the throes of war prove that unnamed sources are correct in saying that you called your wife a C word because she curled(O’ really) her fingers through his balding hair and enlightened him to it’s sparceness, causing him to erupt into profanity? Still not getting this.</p>
<p>But I’m pretty sure some people are following this like it’s a connect the dots picture.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen anything about this idea that he married a friend’s wife. Is there some reference for this? My impression was that he married a good-looking model who had two kids.</p>
<p>No we aren’t arguing about Clinton. We’re discussing McCain’s character. He’s not a hero. He’s human. He’s been admirable and he’s done some less than admirable things. I think it’s pretty funny that you dragged Clinton into the discussion.</p>
<p>But I’ve already said what I meant to say. All this stuff is not important. What is important for me is:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And now he’s pandering to people with a gas tax holiday idea – which is just about the last thing we need. All that does in increase gas use and put us more in debt as our infrastructure crumbles. Talk about a “payoff to the voters” scheme.</p>
<p>“think it’s pretty funny that you dragged Clinton into the discussion.”</p>
<p>As a former Clinton voter I’m not beyond recognizing that people hauling out the first Mrs McCain to show that McCain is lacking character are in fact people who’ve argued previously that certain private life things are not appropriate in discussing a candidate’s worthiness.(I wish I could be partisan enough to do this but it’s a failing…I see what I see and I’ll scoff when in fact I see people trying to make something into something that in fact…isn’t. In this thread we’ve gone from abusive husband C word using McCain to McCain who just left an invalid wife.(Let’s just ignore the whole Nam thing) I’m not seeing how either is different from the McCain having a ‘black baby’ whispers that were used against him in 2000…in every case there’s always someone who should be trusted but unnamed behind the whispers and the whispers are bad enough that the believers feel smug enough to believe them to support their stand against him. Proof? What proof, he’s got to be an ill tempered manchurian candidate who’s a ticking time bomb for what these, last 20 or so years? And why? Because someone says so who wishes to remain unnamed)</p>
<p>I agree with B&P about the failure of McCain’s first marriage - not really surprising, and not evidence of “bad character” in my opinion. And his first wife’s current support speaks volumes to me.</p>
<p>Furthermore, do we really need to wallow in BS like this? Couldn’t we all here on CC just join hands, sing Kumbaya, and agree that the candidates’ positions on actual issues facing the nation: economy, war, debt, etc. should be the basis for voting for one rather than the other instead of slips of the tongue, marital fidelity, or whether someone has a “really bad temper” or not?</p>
<p>I think issues are about the least important reason as to why you should vote for a particular Republocat, and I LOVE negative attack ads- you learn more about the candidates through negative attack ads (both giver and receiver) than through any other single source. And consider how different they are from the rest of a station’s ad content - I mean, about as negative as they’ve ever gotten is “Tastes just like the 70-cent spread.”</p>
<p>“Couldn’t we all here on CC just join hands, sing Kumbaya, and agree that the candidates’ positions on actual issues facing the nation: economy, war, debt, etc. should be the basis for voting for one rather than the other instead of slips of the tongue, marital fidelity, or whether someone has a “really bad temper” or not?”</p>
<p>I don’t agree. I think a candidate’s character and competence are just as important, and perhaps more important than his position on the issues. Congress is far more important than the President when it comes to changing the law.</p>
<p>I supported McCain back in 2000 (before Dubya’s henchmen derailed his campaign).</p>
<p>Since 2000, McCain, despite his decades of foreign policy experience, has shown that he knew as little as Dubya, Cheney & Co. when it came to the invasion of Iraq (“greeted as liberators”, “quick”, etc.).</p>
<p>Plus, he has very little interest in domestic issues (i.e. - the economy) and taking the Bush-line w/ regard to economic policies isn’t exactly confidence-building (hey, I’m all for lower taxes, but as a fiscal conservative - this country can’t afford to keep spending and going into deeper and deeper debt; doing away w/ the gas tax? How else are we going to pay the infrastructure repairs that this country so desperately needs?).</p>
<p>Nonetheless, McCain, despite his temper, seems to be a man of values (maybe too much so, where he is too confident in his ability to prevent his relationships w/ lobbyists, etc. from having an influence in his decision-making) - that’s more than what I can say about the Clintons.</p>