John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire

[J.R.]

Why is this man not our president? He is the first non-actor to host SNL and be funny. There was a bit where he sang Streisand's greatest hits, with the rationale  'Babs has been trying to do my job for years, so I thought I'd try my hand at hers,'. He also considered running for president against a reanimated zombie Jimmy Carter in 2028.

[Squishy]

Yes, his penchant for racial slurs and attacking political opponents through their teenage daughters show both a fine sense of humor and exactly the sort of character a president of the USA should have.

:)

Um...wouldn't HE also have to be a reanimated zombie to run in 2028?

[J.R.]

As opposed to a sex fiend entangled in real estate scams, illegal fundraising,  over thirty suspiscious deaths (not including Waco) and probably rape.

[jmc]

I like him just because he referenced "Weekend at Bernie's" during a debate!
McCain would probably be friendliest to the Bad Movie lobby.

[Squishy]

"As opposed to a sex fiend entangled in real estate scams, illegal fundraising, over thirty suspiscious deaths (not including Waco) and probably rape."

Clinton? After years spent investigating him, his family, and anyone who came within twenty yards of him since he was born--including chaining up Susan McDougall like Hannibal Lecter because she wouldn't testify in the manner in which she was instructed to--a government investigation resulted in the discovery of (drum roll please) one lie about consentual sex.

"Over thirty suspicious deaths?" "Not including Waco?" "Probably rape?" Surprised you left out drug-dealing, vandalizing the White House, eating babies, and inventing AIDS. Now THAT's funny.

SO glad we got rid of that draft-dodging drunk and druggie who had extramarital sex and got George Bush Part II.

:)

[Chadzilla]

I don't know if he calling his captors in Vietnam gooks qualifies as a penchant for racial slurring* (do you have other examples where he has defamed ethnicity via racial slurs, the gook comment is old news) or not, perhaps McCain would have been better off just calling them a***oles, or f**kheads.  But that doesn't sound very presidential either.  Maybe jerks.  Yeah, jerks sounds presidential.

As far as the Clinton joke, I lived in SF for years and was routinely *ahem* 'treated' to a barrage of Chelsea Clinton is a dog jokes, then again we hold our elected officials to a phony higher standard of behavior, so McCain might have acted better.  Still, with all the relentless back and forth insulting, its seems cases of pots calling the kettles black.  I always liked McCain because he was a little pitbull of a politician that held on even when everybody was pelting him with dog dirt (and that tenacity can be an admirable quality, at times).

*One of the most shocking moments of racial slurring I was subjected to was when my Uncle Charles and his family came out to visit the family one summer (1978).  We lived in Alameda then, right across the bridge from Oakland, CA.  A large portion of my family comes from regions where the use of a certain racial slur (one I was raised to believe was profane, like all are) is a pedestrian one, ironically a pedestrian caused a Memorable Moment in my childhood.  We were driving down High Street when we passed some dude walking down the street, the following dialogue exchange has been branded into my memory...

Uncle Charles (whipping his head around and pointing a finger at the guy)  "LOOK!"  He shouts  "A n****r!"

He says this to me.  My response is just to stare at my Uncle in slack jawed shock.

Uncle Charles, sensing he has stepped in a stanky faux paux - "You know, a black person."

Like I didn't know that.  My response, given slowly because of my shock at what my Uncle had said (words like that could get you a mouth cleaning via Ivory Soap, uh, maybe I should day DOVE soap), but it sounds delightfully sarcastic in my memory....

"Yeah...they live here, too."

What that illustrates about McCain and his comments, I don't know.  But a need to be objective about it (considering the context and what not) is necessary.  McCain explained that was how he referred to his captors only, and not the Vietnamese people (much like calling Nazi krauts I guess), in fact McCain was driving force in reopening contact with Vietnam.  Still a slur is a slur, and that one probably cost him a tighter Presidential race.

Like I said, I admire McCain pitbull TR style of grabbing on and shaking, no matter what the world thinks of the side you have chosen.  Would he have been a good president?  The world may never know.  Consider the alternatives.

[Squishy]

I was just answering JR's initial question. The slur may be old news now (like, say, a decades-old child molestation) but wasn't when McCain was destroying his own presidential bid.

I do believe McCain would make a better president than some choices. However, the citizens of our United States who have been routinely slurred with that word, and their friends and families, don't really care if he intended to limit it to a relative handful of foreigners; that he could never seem to get his head around this fact, before or afterwards, was probably more harmful to him than the use of the word itself. (At least he didn't make a habit--or a joke--of it.) We should be glad he didn't have a traumatic experience with people of other races; trying to explain away the N-word might be a tad tougher.

-------------------------------------

The Real Seymour Skinner: "You can't DO this to me!! I'm a war hero!!"
Homer: "And we salute you."
--"The Simpsons," what else?

[Chadzilla]

Squishy wrote:
>
> The slur may be
> old news now (like, say, a decades-old child molestation) but
> wasn't when McCain was destroying his own presidential bid.
>

I meant Old News strictly in the calender sense  and not in the emotional sense (your child molestation reference I'm not touching with a ten foot pole, or two five foot swedes - cue drum, thanks to Hector E. for the quip) because comments and events that leave emotional scars never really grow old to the victims (nasty s**t that happened to me years and years ago still stings).  I was just wondering if you had any other sources that have caught McCain with his foot in his mouth, racial slur comment wise that is, to quantify the use of the word penchant ("a strong and continue inclination") that's all.  For some, once is more than enough and I do not argue that what McCain said was wrong (it was, like I said, he would have been better off saying mother f***ers are something else less racially sensitive) but I could understand the context (in a Devil's Advocate kind of way), but does that make McCain racially insensitive or just a foot-in-mouthed doofus?  Both?

> I do believe McCain would make a better president than some
> choices. However, the citizens of our United States who have
> been routinely slurred with that word, and their friends and
> families, don't really care if he intended to limit it to a
> relative handful of foreigners; that he could never seem to
> get his head around this fact, before or afterwards, was
> probably more harmful to him than the use of the word itself.
> (At least he didn't make a habit--or a joke--of it.) We
> should be glad he didn't have a traumatic experience with
> people of other races; trying to explain away the N-word
> might be a tad tougher.
>

Like I said, a slur is a slur.  To me they're all profane (I wince more at Tarantino's "Dead N" ramble in Pulp Fiction than at all the gobs of profanity).

[Flangepart]

Liked the way you handled your uncle, Chadzilla. Made your point nicely, without starting a row. Good one.

[Dano]

John McCain earned the right to use that word, just like the guys who shot him down earned the right to say whatever word they have (and I guarantee they have one).  It's JUST A WORD - one he picked up when his life was on the line for this country - and using it does not (contrary to the insufferable politically correct babble we are constantly subjected to by our media) necessarily mean he hates an entire group of people.  As far as I'm concerned, it is okay for John McCain - and any other Vietnam vet - to use that word in a non-hateful manner.  The difference: calling all Vietnamese gooks, or referring to a Vietnamese person today as a gook is hateful.  Telling of what "the gooks" did to him in that prison back during the war is fine, as is using it affectionately or jokingly (yes, jokingly).

My father taught me that calling a Japanese person "a Jap" was disrespectful and wrong.  But when my grand dad who waded through 300 yards of chest deep water under machinegun fire at Tarawa talked about how the Japs killed his best friend, we all had the sense know that was different.

Politically correct nonsense in the place of common sense is a cancer in our culture.  Repeat after me: IT IS JUST A WORD.  STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT NAMES WILL NEVER HURT ME.  Don't people learn that anymore?

And McCain was the funniest non-entertainer to host the show... but Janet Reno was also very very very funny when she busted through the wall and confronted Will Farrell who was portraying her.  Dole I didn't think was too funny in his appearances.

[Squishy]

No one's saying he can't use the word--just pointing out that it's unwise to use it in an interview when you're running for public office.

Dano, your father was absolutely correct. My father was a pilot in WWII. He used the word "Jap" on a regular basis, along with other unsavory words to describe "ethnics." When he chose--deliberately and repeatedly--to use it in front of my Japanese friends, who had absolutely nothing to do with his experiences in WWII, I lost what little respect I had left for him. He can still use his words whenever he wants, but he lost a son. I wonder if it was worth it to him.

So hold on tight to racial slurs and your right to use them, if they are more important than dignity and courtesy. Me, I'll stick with the same politically correct "nonsense" your father tried to teach you.

[Dano]

No one's saying he can't use the word--just pointing out that it's unwise to use it in an interview when you're running for public office.
*****  Well, I do agree with that.  I can't even fathom the effect having to watch every last word you say out loud has on people in public service.  In Washington DC a few years ago, a DC official was literally fired for using the word "n***ardly" (it means stingy or overly frugal).  On one hand it was a complete outrage that using a perfectly good word that happens to be a homophone of a slur could get anyone in hot water (imagine if whites protested the next time l Sharpton says "donkey"?).  On the other hand, the guy was a white public official in one of the most racially hypersensitive cities in the country.  n***ardly?  Come on, man.  Who uses that word anymore?  It's wrong that he was fired, but it was dumb that he said it.

He can still use his words whenever he wants, but he lost a son. I wonder if it was worth it to him.
*****  As I said, directing the word at someone today is hateful and really tells you something about a person.  My grand dad never used the word in that way and I strongly suspect he was the one who taught my dad not to either.

So hold on tight to racial slurs and your right to use them, if they are more important than dignity and courtesy. Me, I'll stick with the same politically correct "nonsense" your father tried to teach you.
*****  I think you missed my point.  My dad DID teach me about dignity and courtesy.  Quite effectively, thank you.  The pollitically correct nonsense goes beyond simple manners and targets things like words and ideas and labels them absolute evils.  "Whatever you do, DON'T say the N-word!  In fact we should edit it out of "Huck Finn" the greatest work of literature in American history (and a very anti-slavery anti-racist book for those clever enough to see the subtext)!"  As if it was the WORD that was the problem and abolishing it cures everything.  Wishful thinking on two counts - 1. that you can even abolish a word.  2. that abolishing it will end the problem.  It also fails to take into account that the world is not a simpleton's black and white universe, and McCain using the word "gook" to describe the people who starved and tortured him is not the moral equivelant of someone spraypainting "gook" on the window of a Vietnamese grocery because he's a racist idiot.

[J.R.]

The reason Clintons never got caught for their corruptions was because Janet Reno was in their pocket and refused to investigate. What astounds me about Clinton lovers is that they seem to believe he is nothing short a perfect human being. The Clintons' corruptions are so massive and out in the open that it's just unbelievable (they continue with "Senator" Hillary) , but not enough people seem to care. Bush mispronounces a word, however, and he must be overthrown. Weird. Every charge I threw at Clinton is well documented.

To paraphrase George Carlin: It' not the word, it's the motivation behind the word. If I were held captive and strung up every day for five years I'd have a lot worse things to say.

[Squishy]

J.R.: Every charge you threw at Clinton is well-documented--as a charge--but unproven. I think your careful use of the words "entangled in," "suspicious," and "probably" way back in that message illustrate that you understand this. Yes, it is strange that "corruptions...so massive and out in the open" are not immediately pounced upon by law enforcement, isn't it? (Those "probably" rapes, for example, just vanished into thin air. Wow.) It must be the incredible, Godlike-yet-satanic power that the Clintons wield, controlling the press, the government, the military ("General, ah need a missile strike on Irahq to distract ev'yone from this heah Whatwatah investigation!" "Yes, master! Right away!! I'd be delighted to help you cover it up afterwards!! No one in the entire chain of command will utter a whisper!!"), and even Jerry Falwell (who--quietly--admitted that the "Clinton Chronicles" video was baseless speculation without a shred of evidence, even though it continues to be sold). Save us from them, baby Jesus, save us!

...Or maybe it's because most of it was/is hot gas blowing out of his political enemies' facial anuses. (I did enjoy watching most of Clinton's accusers in the House and Senate be shown as complete hypocrites when it comes to infidelity; I also enjoy laughing at the hypocrisy of those who claim Clinton got a "free ride" from the press while simultaneously complaining that Bush isn't getting one now.)

Dano: I'm going to repeat this again: read each word slowly and out loud. NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN ANYTHING. McCain just suffered for his inability to think before he spoke. He (and you) can try to rationalize it all you want, or try to divert attention by squealing "censorship," but the simple fact is this: although Jesse Helms and Dick Armey could stay in office in spite of their undisguised prejudical hatreds, they would NEVER become President. McCain may not share their vicious stupidity, but he shared, for one brief public moment, their vocabulary, and people judged him accordingly.
 
Side note: this "I didn't mean all g***s, just the ones that did me wrong" bullplop may or may not have been invented specifically as an excuse for McCain's gaffe, but it remains bullplop--just another variation of "I'm no racist, BUT..." Those who use those sort of words, in my experience, do not limit them to individuals.

We could argue this forever, but instead, why don't we try this quick test: Are the men who returned from that disastrous mission in Somolia now granted "the right" to use "the N-word" at will, if only to describe their enemies? How about those related to the victims of the D.C. snipers? Would police chief Charles Moose, after a gun battle with bank robbers, be able to stand behind a podium and call the crooks clever names based on their skin colors? Should anyone who does this get a free pass if they later claim they only meant twenty or fewer people, not an entire race/gender/whatever?

The answer is, to most of that, yes. They could do it. The have the right to say what they wish. They would, however, have to face the consequences. Because the answer to the last question is no. And they all (probably) have enough brains to understand that.

I highly recommend you both try this out in public. Stand on a street corner, or sit down in a church, or visit a school in a diverse neighborhood, and start talking about "those damn ******s" (you pick the slur, but keep it germane to the crowd surrounding you) and then declare that you only meant "those damn ******s that took a shot at me last week" and start lecturing everyone in sight about the horrors of "politically-correct nonsense." After all, you're the guys saying "racist slurs are USA-A-OK, um, in certain circumstances;" now you can demonstrate it. Good luck and God bless.

:)

Anyone notice that the tool of "racial profiling" was never discussed when the Oklahoma City bombing was connected to a white guy? ...How about that. Guess they just forgot to bring it up.

[Squishy]

Quickie corrections: MOST of the charges against Clinton are unproven. He DOES like to screw around. That's actually legal, but it IS a judgment against his character--and those of his accusers who turned out to also have their pants around their ankles a lot. Also, it's spelled "Somalia," not "Somolia." (You know, "Black Hawk Down.")