Things Younger Than John McCain
While surfing tonight, I found a great site that highlights just how old John McCain really is. If elected, he would become the oldest first term President in our nation’s history. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, but being the leader of the free world is the most demanding, stressful job on the planet. Can a man who would take office at the age of 72 deal with the pressures, both mentally and physically, that the job would require?
This fall, the country is looking to elect someone who represents real change as we look to the future to solve important problems such as renewable energy independence, health care reform and global warming. Electing someone who is older than the state of Alaska itself is not a vote for the future, it’s a vote for the past. Here are some other things younger than John McCain (born Aug 29, 1936):
• The AARP (1958)
• McDonald’s (1940)
• The Polio Vaccine (1955)
• Bugs Bunny (1938)
• Both of Barack Obama’s parents (1936 & 1942)
• Dick Cheney (1941)
Wow. What a profoundly cocky post.
Would you accept a post that detailed ways that Obama was nearly as Muslim as Farrakhan and that that might affect his ability to govern, or that Hilary’s female-ness might not fly on negotiations with some countries.
It’s amazing how liberals always want to accuse conservatives of using fear and stereotype to drive voters, but have no problem going straight after those same emotions. This post is the perfect example.
And your “is this a bad thing? Not necessarily.” is ts the laziest way to try to mask that.
This is exactly thebkind of crap Obama is trying to rise above. Shame on you.
Sorry for the iPhone typos
I understand your hesitation to critique the man because of his age, but there is a profound difference between a characteristic that is merely appearance or perception and one that actually effects one’s ability to do his/her job. Age is a real factor of his ability to make decisions, stay healthy and deal with physical and mental stress. My own father is only a few years older than McCain and by all standards is a “health nut” (no red meat, walks to work every day, does all the yard work himself, bran cereal every morning), but my father could never, never take the physical demands of such a high pressure job at his age, and I don’t think McCain could either. To try and pin this post on me being a “liberal” avoids the real question of if McCain is up to the task.
Many would say he is not.
Sure, some 72 year olds are in better health than some 50 year olds. But John McCain is NOT Jack Lalane. He has repeatedly made mistakes during the campaign about where he is, US policy, basic facts and more. I won’t apologize if I want my next President to be in his peak physical and mental shape and neither should you.
Re – iPhone typos – I make ’em all the time myself so no worries. 🙂
I’m kind of with Craig on this one. It’s getting into the gutter and, as Craig rightly scolds, contrary to what Obama is trying to do. Drawing attention to a candidate’s mistakes and missteps is one thing, saying, “Boy, look how very old this guy is” is fearmongering.
Let me rephrase my point.
I don’t care if you ask legitimate questions about McCain’s age. I agree; they are legitimate questions.
The problem I have is that (not necessarily with you) if someone were to make a legitimate argument regarding the fact that Obama is, by Koran law, an apostate Muslim, and therefore subject to the death penalty in both Iran and Saudi Arabia and that might make his ability to negotiate with them a problem, the blind response from the left would be that that is blatantly racist and is using fear and prejudice to sway voters.
But it might be legitimate. It doesn’t really concern me, because I think that the Muslim law which rules those states is not something we should have to run from, but the left would crucify the person who tried to make that argument in public.
I struggle as a Catholic in my society to reconcile my unabashed opposition to the war (the main reason to be concerned about McCain, IMHO) and my real admiration for the social justice policies of Obama (and Hillary, even though a shocking number of Obama supporters have a bizarre hatred for her) with the fact that both Obama and Hillary will fight tooth and nail to avoid even the slightest restrictions on any form of abortion.
So here I sit unable to support candidates on either side because they all support things that I have to say I believe are intrinsically evil. And it just pisses me off that both sides continue to use language and express opinions that further polarize on issues where there need not be polarization. My particular pet peeves are: A) the sanctimonious preaching from the right from people who refuse to accept restrictions on automatic weapons and think the death penalty is a good idea but still call those on the left pagans, and B) the condescending tone from the left that indicates that anyone who lets their faith play a role in their political conscience is a moron and make every legitimate concern expressed about a candidate an issue of racism or sexism, so that they don’t even have to address them, but just accuse those raising the issues of preying on fear.
The truth is that all sides prey on fear. Al Gore’s entire current popularity is based on a Keynote presentation designed to provoke fear. The difference is that both you and I (I assume) agree that the issues he brings up are legitimate things to fear. But there may be other things that I am terrified of (the ongoing slaughter of nearly a million unborn Americans every year-the vast majority simply for birth control) but which don’t scare you, and there may be issues that terrify you (I won’t presume to speculate) which don’t worry me. And both of those may be legitimate issues to the respective holders of those issues.
Anyway, that’s enough rambling. Your post just hit me funny this morning, and I responded.
You bring up a legitimate concern. It should play a role in casting a vote. It should be allowed to be a part of the public discussion, but it isn’t politically correct. I was trying in my clumsy way to illustrate some of that. Lots of things are not open for discussion but should be.
Roch, I sincerely see your point on the matter and I agree that it probably crosses the “not what Obama’s campaign is about” line. Is the original site and my subsequent post snarky? Yes. Sometimes snark is necessary to bring light to an important issue that many say is totally off limits. If the message being conveyed is overshadowed by its presentation, then it fails, as this might have done and for that point I regret it.
However I will fight tooth and nail with anyone who says McCain’s age is off-limits to the discussion of if he should be our next President. The simple fact of the matter is his age makes a difference. Anyone who says it shouldn’t is fooling themselves.
If his age doesn’t matter at 72, then what about at 80? 85? 90? At what point does it become acceptable to talk about his age and health in relation to being the President? Why is 72 off limits but 80 fair game?
These are all questions we, the press and the country should be asking. As of yet, this hasn’t happened.
Craig, you’ve made an extremely well articulated comment there and I have to thank you for your honesty and ability to speak on the subject rationally yet still with passion. I realize that criticizing someone about their age or belief system may fall outside the realm of “politically correct” and I also agree that as a general rule we should all of us, left and right, avoid fear mongering when ever possible.
The purpose of my post wasn’t to try and spread fear, although that’s where some people will take it as. It was intended to highlight a website that is making a statement about McCain’s ability to lead this country (and indeed the world). Some of the factors involved in this are real and some are perceptual. I would not presume to tell someone how to vote based on their personal beliefs, right or wrong etc. and I respect you for looking objectively at the candidates and what they stand for before casting your ballot.
I think part of my problem is that I feel after the last 8 years under Bush, that no one has been looking out for my interests, values and beliefs. I deem our democracy of paramount importance. I value the right of all Americans to have access to safe, affordable heath care, due process and equal rights no matter what their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation. And to be quite frank, that hasn’t happened under George W. Bush. The right has been engaged in 8 straight years of fear mongering to help keep the populace in line and there is a part of me that feels like “an eye for an eye” is just fine and dandy.
I have to do better to fight those urges here on my blog in the future, but I still say that the issue is important enough to raise, even if how it is done wasn’t exactly the most appropriate. Thanks for stopping by with your thoughts, I appreciate it greatly.
I don’t think that age as a number is an issue. You know, the popular and effective Ronald Reagan was “old.”
In my humble opinion, if one were to say, “It takes this candidate ten minutes to walk across the stage, he is forgetful, falls asleep during events and has pee stains on his pants — all signs that he’s not fit to be president,” that would be one thing, but to just say “Older than Alaska!” That’s ageist.
Hello? If making mistakes on the campaign trail is a sign you are too old, then Barack is over-the-hill, too!
He recently said he would campaign in all 57 states (oh wait, was he talking about the 57 Muslim states?).
Now, I am sure you are saying right now– so what, he made a mistake? He’s made other ones too. To attribute all McCain’s mistakes to age is completely unfair, surely as an intelligent human being you can see that? Perhaps age is one factor. I’m sure a grueling and taxing campaign trail is another.
Just because your elderly father is incapable of running a nation at his age– by your own admission– does not mean all men are incapable of such a task.
If you are going to knock McCain and say he isn’t the right choice for President, why don’t you attack his record, or better yet– explain why YOUR candidate is the better choice? It takes a far superior brain to discredit a candidate based on facts, rather than mindless inferences!
And your explanation to Roch about why you want change, you haven’t felt like Bush has done anything to help you in your desire for health care for all, etc. doesn’t say anything about McCain. If you would do some research on his record, you could see that he is clearly not the same man. Before you discredit McCain because he is from the same party as Bush, why don’t you do some research and make up your mind for yourself, instead of letting party lines make the decision for you?
Re: “It takes a far superior brain to discredit a candidate based on facts, rather than mindless inferences!”
Fact. Since 2003, McCain has a cap and trade system, which is similar to what the EU is doing, and has been a financial and regulation nightmare, with a much smaller effect on carbon emissions than expected.
Groups that do not pollute are rewarded financially (yay!) by selling their credits to the highest bidder (boo!). The purchasers can then continue to emit pollutants, just at a higher cost. Or, they can move their business to a country without regulations.
Which means, we’ll be paying more, still contributing to Global Warming, and giving away US jobs in the process.
Regardless, he’s still pimping it on the campaign trail, it’s all over his website. It’s like if he says he “thinks green” then that counts for not having a real solution.
A few days ago, he actually said “…you would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well.” I smacked my head on the television. Repeatedly.
Of course! Why polar bears “respond” by stranding themselves on ice. The walrus population “responds” by stampeding entire colonies to death and abandoning their pups. And sea birds “respond” by not breeding.
Why it only makes sense to leave those who can’t afford expensive energy costs stranded without energy and kill off businesses that can’t afford to buy credits or change their business model fast enough!
Maybe we should all think like Sea Birds and just stop procreating.
Re: “…if you are going to knock McCain and say he isn’t the right choice for President, why don’t you attack his record?”
McCain skipped every one of the 15 votes that the League of Conservation Voters deemed critical measures for the environment.
“Out of 535 Members of Congress, John McCain is the only one who chose to miss every single key environmental vote scored by the League of Conservation Voters last year. When it came time to stand up and vote for the environment, John McCain was nowhere to be found,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. “Every other Member who received a zero from LCV last year at least had the temerity to show up and vote against the environment and clean energy time after time. And unlike John McCain, I doubt any of them would claim to be environmental leaders or champions on global warming.”
Re: “(Barack) recently said he would campaign in all 57 states (oh wait, was he talking about the 57 Muslim states?)”
You know, even if you don’t agree with his argument, in Ged’s defense, McCain IS old. Barack ISN’T Muslim, although that shouldn’t really matter anyway.
Unless you’re worried about the AntiChrist.
Here’s a video that illustrates just *some* of the reasons why I won’t be voting for McCain this fall. You wanted facts, here you go.
Comments are closed.