Is John McCain Smart Enough?

[Puppycow]

Andrew Sullivan and Mark Ambinder discuss the question of whether John McCain is smart enough to be president.

He graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Acadamy.

This right-wing hatchet job informs us that:

McCain's grades were "marginal." He drew so many demerits for breaking curfew and other discipline issues that he graduated fifth from the bottom of the class of 1958. Despite his low "class standing," and no doubt because of the influence of his family of famous Admirals, McCain was leap-frogged ahead of more qualified applicants and granted a coveted slot to be trained as a navy pilot.

Good Party Animal - Bad Pilot:

He spent the next two and a half years as a "naval aviator in training" at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas, flying A-1 Skyraiders.

While a pilot trainee, McCain continued to party hard. He drove a Corvette and dated an exotic dancer named "Marie the Flame of Florida." Timberg wrote that McCain "learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par, at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."

McCain Lost Five Military Aircraft

McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land. The Navy ignored the crash and graduated McCain in 1960.

While deployed in the Mediterranean, the hard partying McCain lost a second aircraft. Timberg described the crash: "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Unscathed, McCain returned to Pensacola Station where he was promoted to flight instructor for Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. The airfield at Meridian, McCain Field, was named in honor of McCain's grandfather.

In 1964 McCain became involved with Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he had met at Annapolis. They were married in Philadelphia on July 3, 1965.

Flight instructor McCain lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. Timberg wrote that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain parachuted onto a beach moments before his plane slammed into a clump of trees.
. . .
While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and "engage in extra-marital affairs."

This was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates. But, as with all his other past behaviors, McCain was never penalized; instead he always got away with his transgressions.

Timberg wrote, "Off duty, usually on routine cross-country flights to Yuma and El Centro, John started carousing and running around with women. To make matters worse, some of the women with whom he was linked by rumor were subordinates . . . At the time the rumors were so widespread that, true or not, they became part of McCain's persona, impossible not to take note of."
. . .
In 1979, while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, who was the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.

 

[Whiplash]

I don't question his intellect. I just question if he's evil enough. I can't, in good concience, vote for this man until I know that he is the most utterly vile and heinous human being alive. I am, after all, a Republican.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Er, that is a rather crappy source.

Linky.

Linky.

Though I have read from better sources that he was quite the party animal and was low in the class.

But seriously, have you read what else they have to say about him? They claim that he has PTSD and is too unstable to be President or he is a manchurian candidate.

I don't think school records is a good indication. Look at Carter .

 

[Puppycow]

There are two sources, one is The Atlantic.

That's why I said it was a "right-wing hatchet job." Doesn't mean those things aren't true. The source is despicable, I readily admit that. I think it's the same people that swift-boated Kerry. But the facts in that particular article seem to be correct.

 

[corplinx]

Other articles on that website:
Barak Hussein Obama Who is he? (with a picture of Obama in a beret with a muslim symbol on it)
John McCain: The Manchurian Candidate connection

Why on earth would you bother linking an article they penned since they are obviously nutters and bigots to boot?

 

[Puppycow]

Other articles on that website:
Barak Hussein Obama Who is he? (with a picture of Obama in a beret with a muslim symbol on it)
John McCain: The Manchurian Candidate connection

Why on earth would you bother linking an article they penned since they are obviously nutters and bigots to boot?

Um. . .

Here's more about Ted Sampley, author of that article.

This too

 

[Brainster]

Sampley's a POW nut, and like all those people (e.g., Ross Perot) he persists in the belief that POWs were left behind in Vietnam. It made for an entertaining movie or two for Chuck Norris, but it's typical conspiracy theory nonsense.

As for McCain, I have participated in about a dozen blogger phone calls with him. He's as sharp as a tack with an incredible memory for details. Yes, he was one of the "goats" of his class, but it wasn't for lack of smarts. And anybody thinking that this will hurt McCain should remember that he himself brings up his class standing quite frequently.

 

[T.A.M.]

Shouldn't the OP ask "Is John McCain Dumb Enough"?

I mean from what others have told me, etc... Don't the US as a populace prefer a simple candidate? Don't they often vote against the smartest guy in the group, call him elitist, or professorial?

TAM

 

[Brainster]

Shouldn't the OP ask "Is John McCain Dumb Enough"?

I mean from what others have told me, etc... Don't the US as a populous prefer a simple candidate? Don't they often vote against the smartest guy in the group, call him elitist, or professorial?

It's populace, for starters, which indicates that maybe you'd qualify.

The notion that the populace prefers non-intellectual candidates is one of those notions that Democrats comfort themselves with. We all know that Republican policies are stupid and foolish, and Democratic policies are warm and wise. The Democratic candidate is invariably a genius of staggering intellect, while the Republican candidate is a dolt. And yet Republicans win, so voters must prefer idiots.

And yet, there is one consistent trend in voting. The Democrats do better among high school dropouts than they do among high school graduates. And they do better among high school graduates than they do among college graduates. In fact, it is quite arguable that the main reason the Republicans have been outpacing the Democrats recently is the relatively larger number of college graduates these days as compared to the shrinking cohort of high school dropouts.

 

[T.A.M.]

It's populace, for starters, which indicates that maybe you'd qualify.

The notion that the populace prefers non-intellectual candidates is one of those notions that Democrats comfort themselves with. We all know that Republican policies are stupid and foolish, and Democratic policies are warm and wise. The Democratic candidate is invariably a genius of staggering intellect, while the Republican candidate is a dolt. And yet Republicans win, so voters must prefer idiots.

And yet, there is one consistent trend in voting. The Democrats do better among high school dropouts than they do among high school graduates. And they do better among high school graduates than they do among college graduates. In fact, it is quite arguable that the main reason the Republicans have been outpacing the Democrats recently is the relatively larger number of college graduates these days as compared to the shrinking cohort of high school dropouts.

**** you, you intellectual elitist...

TAM

 

[UserGoogol]

I'd say it's that people don't mind a candidate who's smart, they just don't want someone who's a geek. The way I see it, from Carter on every election has been won by the less dweeby candidate. (1988 was pretty dweeby all around, but Dukakis managed to edge Bush out to become the dweebiest.) Although this is a pretty informal analysis, and since I was born in 1986 and barely aware of elections until 2000, it's quite possible that losers look dweebier in retrospect purely by virtue of losing.

And yet, there is one consistent trend in voting. The Democrats do better among high school dropouts than they do among high school graduates. And they do better among high school graduates than they do among college graduates. In fact, it is quite arguable that the main reason the Republicans have been outpacing the Democrats recently is the relatively larger number of college graduates these days as compared to the shrinking cohort of high school dropouts.

It should be noted that people go to grad school the trend reverses itself, so there's that. So Democrats win dropouts and the ivory tower and Republicans get that doughy middle.

 

[BenBurch]

It would be HARD to be stupider than Chimpy, and he's been at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for seven hellish years now.

 

[Brainster]

I'd say it's that people don't mind a candidate who's smart, they just don't want someone who's a geek. The way I see it, from Carter on every election has been won by the less dweeby candidate. (1988 was pretty dweeby all around, but Dukakis managed to edge Bush out to become the dweebiest.) Although this is a pretty informal analysis, and since I was born in 1986 and barely aware of elections until 2000, it's quite possible that losers look dweebier in retrospect purely by virtue of losing.



It should be noted that people go to grad school the trend reverses itself, so there's that. So Democrats win dropouts and the ivory tower and Republicans get that doughy middle.

Correct. I do think there's a reason why the grad schoolers tend to vote for the Democrats. Two of the biggest groups who go in for postgraduate degrees are lawyers and teachers, both of whom tend to vote for the Democrats for self-interest.

 

[I Ratant]

It would be HARD to be stupider than Chimpy, and he's been at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for seven hellish years now.

.
With LBJ's "credibility gap", Nixon's paranoia, Slick's sexual predations, "stupid" is the last nail in the coffin of setting the absolute lowest requirement for the job, which surely has no credibility left, with all the trash the parties have trotted out for our approval since LBJ.
McCain has something none of the current residents in the White House, nor his opposition possess,.. and it's rare that it exists in a politician at all, and that's integrity.
It may be watered down by his political needs, but he has it.

 

[BenBurch]

If you can water it down, it doesn't exist.

 

[NotJesus]

I don't question his intellect. I just question if he's evil enough. I can't, in good concience, vote for this man until I know that he is the most utterly vile and heinous human being alive...

I'd say there's no chance of that unless Cheney dies.

 

[Tricky]

The notion that the populace prefers non-intellectual candidates is one of those notions that Democrats comfort themselves with.

This perception first began to be voiced in the 1950s, when Eisenhower was running against Stephenson for president. It was widely suggested that Stephenson lost the presidency because hew was too much of an "egghead", talking over people's heads.

We all know that Republican policies are stupid and foolish, and Democratic policies are warm and wise. The Democratic candidate is invariably a genius of staggering intellect, while the Republican candidate is a dolt. And yet Republicans win, so voters must prefer idiots.

Of the last three Republican presidents, two can barely form a coherent sentence and the third was observed to make up his own facts very frequently. Dolts? Certainly not. Neither were they the most brilliant presidents we've ever had. Nixon, on the other hand, really was brilliant, in a Machiavellian sort of way.

And yet, there is one consistent trend in voting. The Democrats do better among high school dropouts than they do among high school graduates. And they do better among high school graduates than they do among college graduates.

Democrats tend to be populists and a lot of their constituency tend to be poor. Republicans do better with the higher income brackets, and there is a strong correlation between this and college education. So it seems that this statistic is more an artifact of wealth than of education. Yet it seems to be Republicans who rail against "pointy-headed intellectuals" and "effete snobs". For example, some like to insult teachers and lawyers.

 

[Sefarst]

Correct. I do think there's a reason why the grad schoolers tend to vote for the Democrats. Two of the biggest groups who go in for postgraduate degrees are lawyers and teachers, both of whom tend to vote for the Democrats for self-interest.

I can't speak much about teachers, but I'm pursuing a career in law, taking legal studies classes, and will start law school August of 2009 (assuming all goes well). I'm also, however, a member of the College Republicans and have attended debates between the Young Democrats and College Republicans held at our university's law school regarding this year's presidential election. I think, in a very generalized way, you are right. The main focus of these lawyers' concerns during at least one of these debates was vehement disgust with the idea of Tort Reform. There are two possible theories for this: they are concerned with the plight of the poor and downtrodden against big business or they are concerned that their ability to sue people and make money for themselves will be hampered. I lean towards the latter. Another theory a law school friend of mine mentioned is that lawyers are Democrats because lawyers understand the law and the Constitution while Republicans are obsessed with breaking laws and destroying the Constitution (though she was a tad emotional and angry when she said this).

 

[Tricky]

I can't speak much about teachers, but I'm pursuing a career in law, taking legal studies classes, and will start law school August of 2009 (assuming all goes well). I'm also, however, a member of the College Republicans and have attended debates between the Young Democrats and College Republicans held at our university's law school regarding this year's presidential election. I think, in a very generalized way, you are right. The main focus of these lawyers' concerns during at least one of these debates was vehement disgust with the idea of Tort Reform. There are two possible theories for this: they are concerned with the plight of the poor and downtrodden against big business or they are concerned that their ability to sue people and make money for themselves will be hampered. I lean towards the latter. Another theory a law school friend of mine mentioned is that lawyers are Democrats because lawyers understand the law and the Constitution while Republicans are obsessed with breaking laws and destroying the Constitution (though she was a tad emotional and angry when she said this).

My experience with lawyers is that a very high percentage of them are corporate lawyers (My mom-in-law is one). These guys don't get a lot of attention and indeed many of them never see the inside of a courthouse, but every big company has a whole bank of them. I know that we have the popular image of lawyers as ambulance-chasers (or concerned about the rights of the downtrodden, if you prefer that meme), but in reality, there are lots and lots of them that work for wealthy people or corporations. I don't believe that there is much basis for assuming that lawyers will favor Democrats.

Indeed, I don't think there is any reason to suspect that most grad students are teachers or lawyers. Most of the ones I have known are either in medicine or working for their MBAs.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Andrew Sullivan and Mark Ambinder discuss the question of whether John McCain is smart enough to be president.

This right-wing hatchet job informs us that:

I have to laugh at this assessment of Naval Aviators. Before TopGun came out, the wild hair element in Naval Aviation had plenty of subscribers. Came with the badge. TopGun came out and it seemed to me to get a bit more pronounced. Tailhook came about and that soft underbelly was exposed for what it was.

Note: McCain's "flame out" call was not an uncommon occurrence. Three of my friends ejected from A-4's, and at least one from an A-7, due to engine's quitting.

The A-4 is a single engine attack aircraft turned trainer. You lose the engine, and below certain altitudes, the NATOPS manual calls for ejection with no time for a restart. It glides slightly better than a beveled brick.

As to the accident rates in the period 1950-1975, I'll find the figure I usually cite from the Naval Safety Center. The mishap rate was rather high for some decades, for an enormous number of reasons and factors that were, over time, whittled away at to where the mishap rate is quite low now.

ETA when I can find it, I think it's on this machine.
Here it is.

The rate is reflected in mishaps per 100,000 flight hours flown.

Look at the rate when McCain was flying. Look at it now. At one time, "it's dangerous" was in some cases accepted as "the cost of doing business" and it took some serious leadership and policy change, post Viet Nam, to get that institutional attitude changed. It did, as I saw the rate drop by nearly an order of magnitude over my 25 year career.

DR