By Hank Stram, April 2008

It’s more than a little amusing watching the Republicans and their big-media surrogates feign bewilderment that some of us find it creepy that they insist on using the appellation Barack Hussein Obama. “What’s the problem?” they ask. “His middle name is Hussein. Why shouldn’t we use his middle name?”

I think you know what the problem is, Rush Anal-Cyst Limbaugh and Sean Pencil-Dick Hannity. Although I can neither confirm nor deny with 100 percent certainty that those are Rush’s and Sean’s actual middle names, I don’t think there’s much of a question that Obama’s lineage has somewhat complicated the usual politics of personal destruction that we’ve come to know and loathe. But I’d like to challenge the notion that race is the vaunted third-rail of political discourse. Rather, I contend that America’s unabashed fetishization of all things military has brought about an even bigger impediment to a realistic examination of the candidates than has race.

Conservatives like to whine that Obama’s race makes it impossible to have a serious discussion about the man, so mired are we in the culture of political correctness. The complaint is actually a two-fer in that it not only tacitly raises the race issue, but also allows conservatives to inveigh against the PC police and implicitly link them to Obama. It’s like watching a big, dumb dog snarl and slobber and strain at its leash, its favorite chew-toy just a few inches out of reach. I’m the last person to advocate animal cruelty, but I’d like to metaphorically smack this intemperate Republican cur with an uncomfortable idea: our irrational love of all things military has rendered a serious discussion about John McCain next to impossible. A cursory examination of the last few months’ headlines concerning the Democratic presidential race will quickly reveal that racism is tolerated in small doses and that sexism still seems to be moderately acceptable. Yet, a discussion in the mainstream media of how McCain’s hellish POW experience might negatively impact his performance as president is nowhere to be found. Rather, it is to be considered axiomatic that John McCain’s suffering at the hands of his tormentors is, somehow, our gain.

We live in a society in which the military is so revered that the “support the troops” mantra is used time and time again as a trump-card to curb not only an examination of Bush’s colossal blunder in Iraq, but of our domestic policy, as well. With our troops in harm’s way, we’re told, now is not the time to talk about how we got into this mess. Nor is now the time to discuss our rotting domestic infrastructure. Nor is it even the time to discuss withdrawal from Iraq – that, we are told, would dishonor the troops. Nor is it the time to examine the folly of resorting to militarism as a first-resort instrument of foreign policy. Even liberal radio talk-show hosts autonomically intone “I honor your service” whenever a caller claims to be a veteran (no matter how inane said caller’s point might be), and god help the politician who would dare propose curbing military spending (unless that politician is a Republican who wants to “streamline” the military). Vietnam veteran John Kerry’s 2004 presidential aspirations were scuttled by a wealthy real-estate developer (in the guise of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth), who claimed Kerry hated the military because he dared to draw attention to the immorality of the Vietnam War. Subsequently, Kerry’s 2008 comeback was (thankfully) derailed by a bungled attempt at humor that was twisted to make it sound as if he was being disrespectful to the troops.

So now we get to Saint John McCain, the straight talker, the last honest man. I’d like to raise a controversial proposition: the fact that John McCain was a tortured POW precludes a critical examination of his psyche, his character, and his suitability as president. It also precludes a serious look at his life before he was a POW and during the years immediately following his release. Knowing that I’m treading on dangerous ground, I’ll emphasize that McCain endured unimaginable horrors and that I’m a coward who would never have volunteered for military service and would have fled for Canada had my draft number been called. But I’m not vying for the position of Most Powerful and Important Person on the Planet. The media loved the Bush narrative – that of reformed drunk who came to Jesus – and gave Dubya a pass on most of his miserable pre-sober life, beginning to ask just a few of the tough questions only once it became painfully obvious that he was dangerously unqualified to hold office; alas, we were already a few years into his presidency when the press woke up. While Christ may have washed Bush’s sins away and he may have become pure of heart, this doesn’t ablute the simple truths that he is an incurious, bellicose, vindictive fuck-wit with a Manichean world-view and that there were abundant clues that would have made this obvious to the electorate, had the media done its job. Although it could be perceived as intemperate, might we not be better off this time around if the media began asking some “impolite” questions about John McCain?

So let’s have at it. If Obama’s middle name is fodder for further analysis of whether or not he’s a “stealth Muslim,” sent to undermine and destroy our nation once he’s infiltrated the Oval Office, should it not be fair to bring up the fact that McCain finished fifth from last in his class at Annapolis? Might this be indicative of low intellect? If it’s acceptable to call Obama an “affirmative action” candidate, why can’t we ask how a man of such low academic caliber managed to gain admission to the US Naval Academy? Might it have something to do with his father and grandfather having been Admirals in the Navy? Isn’t this affirmative action of a sort? Why did McCain’s military superiors regard him as a hothead and what did he do that resulted in an unprecedented number of demerits while at Annapolis? Did he behave recklessly? Did this recklessness have anything to do with his having to ditch a plane in Corpus Christi Bay or flying training plane so low in Spain that he cut a bunch of power lines and nearly crashed again? Did his pedigree keep his career as a combat pilot alive? Did McCain’s torment at the hands of his captors have anything to do with turning him into the kind of man about which some of his Republican colleagues in congress have said things like “The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me”? Should a man with a temper be allowed anywhere near the dreaded “nuclear missile launch button”? Did being locked in a tiger cage for almost six years lead to his calling our country’s civilian leaders “complete idiots” who “didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war”? Did his release from horrid captivity lead to his subsequent admitted womanizing? Did it lead him to ditch his wheelchair-bound wife and their children for a multi-millionaire beer-distributorship heiress?

I haven’t even touched on McCain’s multiple flip-flops on important matters like campaign finance reform, cavorting with lobbyists, or torture of detainees; these are already widely known. But if Hillary Clinton’s fat ankles and her “marriage of convenience” or Barack Obama’s “stealth Muslimhood” and youthful drug use can be dredged for indications of presidential temperament, shouldn’t we jettison the niceties and ask some difficult questions about John McCain? Or would that be politically incorrect?