As per McCain’s service, I have never suggested his military service is enough for him to be President. I simply quoted the articles which you said “perhaps reading them will help shed some light onto the way the rest of us think.” And one of those made the quoted statement that his address “reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle.” So my question was simply, why is it (if not you) your side doesn’t like his heroic military service anymore?

[DNFTT]

how can I link to this for one of my blogs?

Clicking on the title of a post (the title of this post is “Preaching to the choir”) will give you the permalink for the post. You may use that permalink to link to the post on your blog. (Or you can put your mouse pointer on the title, right click and then click on “Copy Link Location.” This will copy the permalink to your clipboard.

Granted, the editorial board of The New York Times endorsed Mr. McCain, not for the presidency, but for the Republican nomination. Again, there is a difference. Another difference is that the two gentlemen to whose columns I linked do not represent the editorial board of The New York Times; they are employed by that newspaper as columnists.

Are you beginning to understand?

Bob Herbert, Frank Rich and myself have not changed. John McCain has changed. He promised a respectful campaign based on the issues, then he brought in the Bush/Rove bunch to run his campaign. That promise went out the window. He used to have a good relation with the media, now he hardly talks to them. He used to not like George W. Bush, now he adores him. He used to have honor (well, so some say) and now he has none.

I am glad I am able to provide you with this venue through which to express your thoughts (misguided though they may be). Please understand if I must now spend some time on other projects besides trying to guide you onto the correct path.

If you are on the correct side of today’s political debate, you will enjoy both columns. If you are on the other side, perhaps reading them will help shed some light onto the way the rest of us think. At any rate, consider this your Sunday morning reading assignment.

Wishing to be enlightened, I read.

Still, attention must be paid. McCain’s address, though largely a repetitive slew of stump-speech lines and worn G.O.P. orthodoxy, reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle.

So, if I have this straight, you used to like McCain’s heroic service? What changed that?

Other than that, the NY Times article is basically saying that McCain flip flops and panders to the right. He lies and makes rash decisions. He builds up his friends, only to sell them out later. He is Bush’s 3rd term.

That having been said, I can see why you don’t like him. What I don’t see, however, is why you would then read the New York times. After all, here is what they had to say about John McCain when they were endorsing him back in January.
NY Times Endorses McCain

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

That is a far cry from…

It stretches the mind almost to the breaking point to think of John McCain as an agent of substantive change. He once believed that Phil Gramm was the most qualified person in the United States to be president. And he now believes that Sarah Palin is the most qualified to be vice president.

So maybe this will help you understand where I am coming from. I expect you to like the New York Times. They openly lie, and change their mind from one minute to the next. They say in January that McCain “promises change”, yet 9 months later it stretches the mind to the point of breaking to try to recall that same opinion the had 9 months ago.

They deride the experience of Palin in the first article you linked stating…

As for her “executive experience” as mayor, she told her hometown paper in Wasilla, Alaska, in 1996, the year of her election: “It’s not rocket science. It’s $6 million and 53 employees.”

Yet they overlook that Barack Obama’s “Community Organizer” experience involved…

During his three years as the DCP’s director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.

You see, the trouble is not that we can’t see where you’re coming from. The trouble is that we do see where you are coming from.

But this is right up your ally. When Obama’s Speech set a record you said Americans were “hungry for change” and asked if anyone cared to venture a guess how many would tune in for McCain. When McCain broke his record, you called it a “Slumber Party”.

I would like to venture a guess. More. Damn… too late.