Many interesting observations made. LAVDUMPER: you've made excellent points and reflect, in a unique way, the respect many of us have for McCain's (like the others, along with my hatred for Hanoi Jane Fonda, the rich "Communist" w***e, when it was hip at UC Berkely, UW Madison...conveniently turned capitalist: her well-documented record speaks for itself, also) sheer guts and stamina, supported by belief in his country, in order to try and survive years in solitary confinement while repeatedly injured by torture and expected to cooperate for propaganda etc. Try not to get me wrong here-his truly awesome background both as a Navy Attack pilot (quite an accomplishment in itself, no doubt) and later as a US Senator speaks for itself-but the Pprune discussion(s) about him might be more objective if Pprune members can avoid feeling like it is a personal attack on the MAN (as opposed to the politician), because of our admiration for his guts and determination? By the way, Lou Shattuck, former F-105 "Thud Driver" (also a Hanoi POW for several years, later flew with the Holiday Inn aerobatic team?) was in my Dad's student pilot class in the early 50s.
What some of us don't like is McCain's distortion of salaries and equating a full flying month to someone working inside a corporate cubicle for 40 hours per week. Many US jet airline pilots, yes-jets, as FO, qualify for US govt food stamps to feed their families: flying the CRJ, Avro, Embraer....and Senator McCain implied that we all have excellent salaries and don't have plans on our days off-that's where he's speaking pure B.S. McCain earlier questioned the patriotism of very many US airline pilots, with a similar arguement, no matter whether we are veterans or not. Only a fool or would question McCain's immense patriotism-but that is not the case here. But a number of the Senator's comments seemed like a low cheap shot and in questionable taste, at best, no matter what McCain's own background consists of.
None of this detracts from my admiration for his past accomplishments and basic integrity. Why can't questions about a govt leader's well-scripted (he has a large staff for research?), very inaccurate, sweeping generalizations be tolerated? Is he above any criticism or questioning? Now this seemed to have been the case with many "patriotic" leaders in the 30's 40's etc-does anyone see my point?
Must/should any remarks and philosophies of any much-admired politician always be unquestioned in a democracy? If so, what if all top govt leaders's remarks were above reproach?
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 07 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 07 May 2001).]