greyrat says:

My grand parents were visciouly bigoted, especially toward “Them damn Japs!” which was clearly a by-product of their experience in World War II. I was willing to give them a buy on that, because their experiences weren’t the same as my experience. And I’ll give McCain the same.

That being said, the answer to your question is clearly “B”. And it would be for my grand parents too — except maybe the sadistic part.

gnomic says:

By that McCain wants to be be Chief Gook after Gook Bush. Gookie for him.

Andrew says:

I don’t have any problem with McCain (or your grandparents, greyrat) hating anyone who’s done them harm. They can call ‘em gooks or japs or nips — whatever.

Until they want to represent the American people. At that point that kind of bullshit has to stay inside your head.

If McCain had said, “Yes, for years after I came home I referred to them as gooks. I earned that right” I would have understood.

But to say, ‘I want to be President of the United States and serve as the single most visible representative of this country and I will continue to use the term” crosses the line. Because while he may like to think that gooks = his guards, the reality is that to everyone else is means Asians, period.

At the risk of being incredibly offensive, let me put it this way: If McCain had said, “I’ll continue to use the word ‘niggers’ to refer to Michael Vick and his group of dog killers, but not African Americans as a whole,” what would we think?

gnomic says:

I’d think he was a Republican.

Which was my (too subtle) point. I want the idiots to keep saying stupid things — that makes it easier to avoid voting for them.

I don’t want to elect someone who is thinking “gook” and not saying it. Being a secret racist is not a better type of racist.

This is America - you have the right to be a hateful racist, a fundamentalist nitwit that thinks humans kept dinosaurs as pets, or believe that micheal jackson is normal. And that is the importance of the 1st amendment (free speech) - so that people can say what they think and be judged for it - just not by the government.

AdmiralSCL says:

This is his macaca moment.

gnomic says:

Sadly, I doubt it. Bush’s approval is around 28%, which means that at least that many are OK with torture, lying, deceit, ignoring the constitution, breaking the law, and getting our soldier’s killed to preserve the lies. I don’t think a racial slur will be changing their minds. And while McCain is trying hard to make it look like there is some distance between him and Bush, McCain has put on the kneepads and bent himself over the desk to get some more cash (What? The wife won’t bankroll him? Even Clinton is willing to try to buy the Presidency).

No, McCain could get caught sacrificing small children and as long as he said it was for the stunted, narrow-minded god that Hagee and his ilk worship, he probably wouldn’t lose a single vote.

Andrew says:

I dunno, Gnomic. “Macaca” cost George Allen plenty. Sure, there are right-wing extremists who couldn’t care less, but there are also enough undecideds who won’t let it go.

And the difference between Allen and McCain is that Allen tried to make it sound unimportant, whereas McCain is acknowledging that it’s a slur and is unapologetic.

I think, politically, McCain is doing the right thing. There’s no way you can try to explain that away (as Allen found out), so you have to go with it — “I meant it and I still mean it. Remember, I’m a decorated vet like Kerry. But I screwed up and got captured.”

gnomic says:

Well, I’m not going to dis the guy for getting captured. It was another bad government that put him there for a meaningless war. I will fault him from not learning that lesson. And its been 30 or 40 years now. He’s obviously gotten over the torture because he’s voting for it even while speaking against it out of the other side of his mouth. Actions speak a lot louder than words. I agree, Allen botched and re-botched his excuses; McCain says “I’m a racist bigot and that’s OK.” It probably is the smarter tactic; its worked for Bush for many years.

I doubt if there are many undecideds left in this election. With the economy going to hell in a handbag, the quagmire war bringing the dollar down and the price of oil up, and government failing to do a single thing to solve any of our problems, its only the rich, the zelots and the stupid that are still on board the GOP ticket.

Chuck Staples says:

I’m sure we’d all have nasty names for somebody who held us captive for five years. It’s human.

How would you refer to your N. Vietnamese captors? Sir? Mr. Nice Asian Man?

Andrew says:

“Those motherf**king sons of bitches.” And I wouldn’t leave out the asterisks.

gnomic says:

There is a difference between being specific about the tortures as Andrew did above and using a general racial slur that implies that anyone of that race is guilty.

But McCain can’t be all to bothered by torture if he’s silling to support it, even while pretending to condemn it.

lionemom says:

I grew up going to public school in Queens NYC during the time of integration in the 1970’s. What this means is that busloads of underprivileged, under-educated minorities got to go to my school because it was in a predominantly white, middle-class neighborhood (Andrew did too - we went to the same PS.) So I got to be exposed to plenty of black kids who were total a**holes to me. But I never formed a RACIAL bias against them. I could have; very easily! Instead I figured out that it was individuals who were jerks and a**holes, not the entire racial group.

I can understand McCain being biased, even against the whole ethnic group. Being held captive and tortured for years by people claiming to represent a whole country can color a person’s viewpoint permanently. But I believe he should censor himself to calling his captors by some other, non-racial, insulting name. I would be totally fine if he busted out on prime time TV saying “those a**holes that tortured me and my friends….”. I might even stand and applaud, but for different reasons (too much PC these days.) But calling them by a racial slur, and then DEFENDING that action, is not very presidential.

Ray says:

Maybe if they’d tied you up and beat you, rebroke your arms and legs and knocked your teeth out, you’d call them gooks too.

Andrew says:

Doubtful. Certainly not if I was running for political office.

Of course, that’s what McCain claims happened, but we don’t know for sure, do we?

gnomic says:

I suspect that there is medical evidence to prove or disprove personal claims from McBush, but even if there isn’t, (hey, what’s another lie from this guy?) there is plenty of evidence that POWs were tortured.

But in the big scheme fo things, does this really matter? Do we want to destroy the messenger to disprove his argument - a page right from the GOP playbook?

There is enough true of McBush’s lies, deceptions, self=deceptions in the past few months to prove that he is a hypocrite and a liar (intentional or unintentional due to senility has yet to be established.).

His warmongering is bad for America
His Bush leftover tax policies are bad for America
His economic policy is nonexistent and what he’s teed up is written by foreign banks. (Anyone here remember the Keeting Five and the S&L bailout?)
He has no respect for the soldiers that has sacrificed for Bush’s fruitless quagmire of a war.
McCain is suckling at the sour teat of the far riech wing false-religious nuts, pandering for table scraps. And on his knees for corporate donors that have bought the GOP.

He’s for spending your money, running up debts that you and your kids will pay for generations, and killing our kids, and And you worried that his using a racial slur?