Say something like this in a debate:
Will McCain, who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and who lost five jets, return competence to the White House?
Heh. It's funny 'cuz it's true.
Can't see Romney doing it, though.
[Update in the afternoon]
Was that a cheap shot? Probably. Certainly the aircraft accident on the deck wasn't McCain's fault, nor was getting shot down when he ended up in the Hanoi Hilton. But as I note in comments, he's not a very nice guy, by all accounts, and it's the kind of thing that he'd do himself (after all, he insists on continuing to lie about Romney's "timetable" record) so it would be poetic justice if such a thing caused him to reveal his true nature.
[Another update about 3 PM EST]
This seems relevant: Mark Levin:
Let's get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain's record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate's record? That's par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney's ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain's comments about Romney.
Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a "manager for profit" and someone who has "laid-off" people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his "millions" or "fortune" to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney"s character doesn't let him cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain's does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.
And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
As I said, better to get this out there now, rather than wait until the nominee has been chosen.
I doubt it would bother him at all. McCain takes strange pride in the fact that he was more interested in parties than academics. It's part of his "maverick" image.
Now, what message does that send to the youth of the nation he would lead? That's the question Romney should ask.
Rand, I have genuinely enjoyed reading your blog for several years now. I have had a great deal of respect for you, and I wouldn't visit your site daily if I didn't find it interesting and valuable. I became a conservative (well, a non-liberal at least) a year after I finished at MIT and discovered my former prof Paul Krugman's articles at the NYTimes. It might be an understatement to say I detected some dissonance between his classroom and public statements, and it was while I was researching some of his articles that I stumbled upon your blog, and have enjoyed reading it ever since. You might be interested to know I'm a Catholic who has found special value in your insights on religion, belief, and non-belief; as often as I've been irked by things you've said, you've always given good food for thought that I think is useful to keep a believer grounded in reason.
Anyway, thanks for all you've written that I've had the benefit of reading, but in light of this post... fuck you, Rand. If this is the way you think, then I'd say you are a sad little piece of shit, and I won't bother even getting into it with you.
Thank you for your opinion; I'm sorry you feel that way.
Let me just say that I admire and honor John McCain for his bravery and sacrifice in Vietnam.
I don't believe that it makes him presidential material, nor do I think it justifies his highly developed sense of self righteousness. And I hope that his inevitable meltdown occurs before he's wrapped up the primary, rather than in the general election.
I have to cut him some slack on the planes. Most were Spad's which were like flying WWII bombers by yourself.
I dunno, guys, it kinda makes me look forward to the debates before the general, at least if it's McCain vs HRC. Give 'em a few extra lamps and let 'em ask each other the questions ... reminds me of the classic SNL sketch that portrayed the GOP '88 NH primary debate. Dan Akroyd was priceless as Bob Dole.
"Just a Guy",
McCain does not like the 1st amendment, so if you don't like Rand exercising it then he's your candidate.
I for one believe you can't be a free people without free expression.
I met McCain when he was campaigning in NH for the 2000 election. He was down right abusive to people questioned anything he said. His also never directly answered any question asked of him.
McCain is the only one running that could cause me to vote for Hillary.
If McCain had been a dunce rather than an academic slacker, the Navy wouldn't have given him wings, admiral's son or no.
Of course, George W. Bush's much better academic and flying records prove he's an idiot. Or something.
Yet another bullshit tirade against McCain. McCain is sometimes not a nice guy. Big deal. Just because he doesn't kiss Limbaugh's or Hannity's ass doesn't make him less a conservative. The American Conservative Union gave McCain's voting record in the House and Senate a lifetime rating of 82%. I guess that's not good enough for some "conservatives." Their guy, Romney... is just enough of a conservative to be convenient. Or slick. Or both.
As someone astutely noted over at NRO (and I'm paraphrasing):
Had McCain finished 703rd of 899, that would have indicated dullness. To finish 894 of 899 indicates a smartass with a razor-keen sense of exactly how much he can get away with.
Since we may be stuck with Hilary or McCain for dictator, I want to get my two cents in for the real issues. Energy Independence Now! No more Oil Wars! We need to stop paying our adversaries with oil money. It is unseemly for an American President to beg a Saudi despot for cheaper oil.
We need to drill in ANWAR and we need to build more nuclear power plants.
Jim Rohrich:
If you just look at the last decade of McCain's Senate record, that percentage gets significantly worse (I did the numbers). And it's his recent record that's troubling (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14 depending on your pov, and so on).
Is he bad enough to justify comments like Coulter's? I don't think so. But his last decade of Senate service doesn't qualify as "conservative" according to the very source you cited (they take 80% or more). I'd take Romney first (though I was a FredHead before he dropped to be with his mom).
The mistake ya'll are making is to confuse the post Reagan GOP with anything remotely conservative - as a philosophy anyway. The day Ronald Reagan made George HW Bush his VP was the day conservatism as a movement philosophy was shown the door. As for McCAin - next to Henry Waxman or Dennis Kucinich McCain might be conservative. But his 82 percent rating is NOT a recent rating but rather one his flunkies keep telling the dimwitted press who don't pay attention. His score on the conservative scale is c. 62 making him about as conservative as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and right in there with RINO Lincoln Chaffee - former squish and RINO from one of those small states on the Mid-Atlantic coast. In any event, it is going to be fun watching McCain implode and the GOP establishment turn themselves inside out trying to explain him. The press will drag up all the nasty stuff about him including the mess he made of his days on the Commerce Committee and his actual treament of the military that came before him at one time or another. McCain is a smarter dumbell than George W. Bush but thatisn't sayin much. As for his war record - I don't care what he was flying - after two crashes he would have been flying a desk in multiengine squadron in Jacksonville. By the by - since no one was paying attention - the 'lost' candidate conservatives supported one Duncan Hunter was a decorated Vietnam Marine officer, still married to the same woman with TWO sons in the military, one of whom has served to tours in Iraq. But who pays attention - Hunter didn't have the bad temper and attention getting ability of the son of priviledge and media darling - John McAmnesty.
The good thing about this mess - a third and fourth party will come out of the dissolution of the two parties.In the election of 1860 there were four parties trying to take the prize. The new Republican Party ended up replacing the Whigs - Abraham Lincoln received 39 percent of the vote. We need a split -- this nation does the two parties have become opposite wings on the same vulture picking on the bones of the Republic. As for conservatives -- actual conservatives and not folks who are foot soldiers in the Republicrat party are over being used and told to wait till next time. Ya'll can do without them anyway. Think of all the moderates and liberals the new GOP will pick up under McCain - such a charmer - reminds me of my grandpa when his teeth were too tight. As song goes -- the party is over - time to call it a day - and a very long tiring day it has been for any actual honest to gosh conservative.
Well you make a VERY compelling case, i.e., there are many excellent reasons on which sane men and women can agree on to NOT vote for John McCain in the 2008 Presidential race (see McCain: The Myth of a Maverick), but I think you're overlooking the value is his being huffy and puffy and pissed off -- that just may be ONE good reason to vote FOR him.
I'm not kidding.
David Allyn, Ph.D., author of I Can't Believe I Just Did That makes the case that hiding one's emotions in order to be "nice" or "accepted" does way more harm (to you and others) than good.
While John's temper is, admitedly, not that much to have going for him, it's not the liability everyone is making it out to be, and that's my real point here. To understand way, see:
Why John McCain's Temper is Probably the only Good Reason to Vote for Him.