Another letter to Congressman

I commend you for voting for the bailout yesterday.

I am disappointed at the stock market rise today (almost 500 points on the Dow), which essentially was Wall Street saying, “We don’t need no stupid bailout.” I think, though, that if the experts think there is even a 25% chance of a serious recession/depression, then the bailout is probably worth it.

I have become concerned about a new issue: bank size. With their recent acquisitions, properly done to help the economy in this crisis, several more banks are becoming “too big to fail,” as AIG was. JP Morgan Chase, CitiBank, and Bank of America have all swallowed up large, troubled banks, thus pushing themselves into the “too big to fail” category. Meanwhile, Wall Street darling Goldman Sachs has switched from being an investment bank to an ordinary commercial bank. Once this crisis is over, the government should look at the antitrust implications of these mergers, perhaps a partial revival of Glass-Steagall, or some other approach to limit the risk of these huge banks getting into trouble.

People say that the stock market is not a good indicator of the current problem with the economy, which is the credit market. However, the problem with the credit markets freezing up is that they might produce a recession/depression. By going up 500 points today, Wall Street is saying it expects continued good times, not a recession. One standard for judging a reasonable stock price is the price/earnings ratio. If earnings go down, then the price (and the Dow) should go down. Wall Street is saying that even if there is no bailout, it does not expect earnings to go down. That view certainly supports those who voted against the bailout.

I think we are fortunate to have experienced hands like Paulson and Bernanke at the helm of our economy, and if they still strongly support a bailout, then I say do it, although at the moment it seems to go against the majority opinion on Wall Street as well as Main Street.

How Bad Is the Financial Crisis?

After listening to people talk about the crisis for days, I'm not so sure that it's as bad as I first thought it was. It should be pretty bad to warrant a $700 billion bailout. I thought people were talking about avoiding a depression; now they only seem to be talking about avoiding a recession. It it's a shallow recession, and there is no actual recession at all yet, then it may not be worth $700 billion. We've been through recessions before. We've only been through one depression in the last century. The fact that Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG disappeared is unusual, but except for Lehman, they didn't really cease to exist; they just changed names or owners. Even part of Lehman was snapped up. So, how many jobs were lost? A few thousand at Lehman, and bonuses at some firms may be reduced a few million dollars. Nothing serious.

The talking heads are saying that agreement on a bailout bill is close today. At the moment, the stock market is up almost 300 points. On CNBC they have been saying that the credit markets are still acting badly. I'm not sure what that means, although some of it seems to be that banks are still demanding big interest rate spreads to loan money.

So, now I think this bailout may be overkill. Bush did not scare me sufficiently.

And John McCain is politicizing this crisis, if in fact it is one, for all it's worth, which may not be as much as I thought a few days ago. It's pretty clear that his plan was to attack Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress as soon as they approved a bill. The Republicans called his hand on it, because they don't want to go into elections with their party leader, McCain, calling them traitors to the Republican Party. So, instead McCain now claims to be riding to the rescue of the plan, rather than keeping hands off to attack it later.

One thing he is not doing: he is not putting country first. He's putting John McCain first. He has a tough choice. He has been a free-marketeer all his life. Now, does he violate all of his principles and support the bailout bill socializing Wall Street, or oppose it and run the risk of being responsible for the ensuing depression, if there is one? Obama has clearly been more presidential by taking Paulson and Bernanke at their word and pledging to support them with some caveats.

Although as a private citizen I am now skeptical, if I were in a position of power, and Paulson and Bernanke told me there was a genuine chance that the US could fall into a depression, I would support the bailout bill.

Another letter to congressmen re financial bailout

I think we have to do something to prevent the US financial system from self-destructing. Therefore, I support doing something along the lines recommended by Sec. Paulson and Fed chief Bernanke. However, it seemed to me from their testimony this morning that their plan is to have the US government buy mortgage-backed securities from troubled firms for much more than their current market value in order to keep the banks solvent. So, I expect the US to lose a lot of money and the banks to make a lot of money. It is welfare for rich people, but the alternative is poverty for everyone.

Nevertheless, the $700 billion plan is highly inflationary. Bernanke has apparently given up worrying about inflation, which is understandable. It’s sort of like saving someone’s life today by giving them a drug that will kill them in a year or two. Most people would choose to live until tomorrow.

We know the solution for inflation – high interest rates and high taxes. We can’t institute those now, but we should promise to institute them as soon as the recession/depression ends. I would recommend that as a down payment you get Bernanke to promise to raise the Fed rate by 0.25% now and that you raise income tax rates by 1% now, just to remind people that there is a huge bill coming due.

You should not ignore the fact that Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs, the troublemaking institution (by dealing in these questionable securities) that has so far come out smelling like a rose. This goes double because Pres. Bush lied to us about WMD in order to get the US to invade Iraq. As a politician, you should remember that Sen. Clinton probably lost the Democratic presidential nomination because she was duped by Bush’s war justification. Although I don’t trust Bush, I think that Paulson and Bernanke are patriots and not purposefully misleading the American people, although these issues are so complex that probably no one understands them completely.

No More Superpower

The economic collapse on Wall Street may be the beginning of the end for the United States’ superpower status, coming about 15 years after the Soviet Union lost its superpower status, also mainly because of economic failures. The US will continue to be a powerful country, and will maintain parity with the EU and other large countries, but will eventually cede its leadership position to China. A sad day for America. Wall Street traders are short term winners, but America as a country is a long term loser. Some time soon it will be time to pay up, mostly to China, and it will be painful. I am particularly saddened because I don't feel that I participated in the excesses that led to this debacle. If I'm going to help pay for an extravagant gambling trip to Las Vegas, I should at least have been there.

America's real loss of prestige and power will probably not become apparent until inflation runs rampant, which is on the horizon, although exactly when is hard to say. Inflation will produce its own winners and losers. I saw this first hand in Brazil a few decades ago, but the country will be a loser. Perhaps we can take comfort from the fact that Brazil after its bouts with inflation is still out there striving to become a great power. The old saying still holds, however, that "Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be." Perhaps the US will become the country of the past that is always trying to regain its stature.

The only good news is that Republican laisse-faire economic theories have been totally discredited. The Republican icon Ronald Reagan turns out to have been wrong. We had a baby boomer generation of good times freeloading on the hard work of World War II's greatest generation.

A Bridge Loan Too Far

Paulson and company have decided to insure money market accounts up to $50 billion. That's too much for me. Granted, a couple of money market funds have "broken the buck" and have lost so much money that they can't return a dollar for every dollar invested. So, Paulson will make up the difference. And in the process he will destroy regular, hometown commercial banks. Why would anyone keep money in a low interest bank account when higher interest money market accounts are guaranteed by the government? Just debit your money market account once a month to some credit card and pay all your bills over the Internet using the credit card. Destroying local banks will, of course, move almost all banking activities to Wall Street, to the people who created this crisis through their poor management. Paulson will destroy conservative local bankers to help his risk-taking friends at Goldman, Sachs. He is truly turning the banking industry on its head, destroying the strong to help the weak.

The problem with bailing out the money market funds is that this is problem that they and their investors created themselves. There are many kinds of money market accounts: some which buy questionable corporate bonds (close to junk bond status) and pay high rates of return, and others which buy government bonds or only high quality corporate paper, and which pay lower interest. One of the funds in question is in trouble because it bought Lehman bonds. Why did it buy Lehman bonds? Because Lehman was in trouble and had to pay higher interest to get people to buy its bonds. So this fund knew it was buying risky bonds; the high interest was a dead giveaway, and the investors in the money market fund knew that they were taking a risk, because the fund was paying higher interest. Everybody involved could see there was a risk, and they decided to take it.

Now the government comes along and says, "You poor dears! Never mind your mistake, we'll give you the money you lost." These weren't people who were tricked; they were just a little too greedy. They should not be bailed out, especially when it means the end of local banking as we used to know it.

So, now Paulson and Bernanke have lost my support. They are just going nuts with the government credit card. They are saying that they don't care a whit about inflation. America is doomed to becoming a banana republic. Paulson saved his buddies at Goldman, Sachs, and he saved his own fortune which is no doubt closely tied to Goldman, Sachs fortunes. I'm guessing that Bernanke will quit the Fed soon and his Jewish friends on Wall Street will take care of him in grand style for bailing them out. America be damned!

But Nancy Pelosi can continue to wear her diamonds and South Sea pearls, and John McCain can continue to flit around in Cindy's private Cessna Citation jet, because Paulson and Bernanke will make sure they don't suffer any financial losses. Well, maybe Pelosi did take a $500,000 hit, but she probably won't have to sell her pearls.

Biden Is a Patriot, McCain Is Not

John McCain has attacked Biden for saying that is patriotic to pay your fair share of taxes. McCain lost me totally, because I agree with Biden. McCain is against supporting the troops in Iraq. It's tax money that buys their flack jackets, their armored humvees, etc. McCain would let them die so that he and Cindy can buy another mansion and a private jet. Poor America!

Letter to the President

I have just read that the government is going to bail out AIG. At this point there may be no alternative if our financial system is going to survive. But you have presided over a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super-wealthy upper class. Under the Bush administration taxes were reduced on the upper classes to the lowest rates in generations, beginning the transfer of wealth. What thanks did we get? The rich virtually destroyed the financial system. But to (hopefully) avoid the total destruction of the financial system, the government has undertaken a further massive transfer of wealth to the rich to bail out their investments. As they say, you have privatized the gains and socialized the losses. You have negated “moral hazard.”

The United States is significantly weaker than it was before the financial crisis. By failing to control the greed on Wall Street, you have undermined our national security, while poor rednecks are fighting two wars far from our shores. The government has betrayed our soldiers. Because of low taxes, particularly on dividends, capital gains, and other investments, the rich didn’t even contribute their fair share to fighting the wars. This bailout is now being done with money borrowed from China, the Middle East, and Europe, most of which will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren, although I suspect that at some point the government will let inflation run wild so that we can repay today’s huge debts with tomorrow’s worthless dollars.

The government’s further contribution has been to run an expansionary fiscal policy of low taxes and deficit spending during years when the economy was not so bad. The Bush administration inherited a budget in surplus. Now, with the economy in shambles, it will probably be difficult to raise taxes for years to come, making the obscenely wealthy even more obscenely wealthy and virtually destroying the middle class. The entire burden of dealing with the financial debacle has fallen on monetary policy managed by the Fed and Treasury, because corruption and incompetence have destroyed the usefulness of fiscal policy.

On 9/11/2001 Osama bin Laden tried to destroy the U.S. financial system by attacking the World Trade towers. He failed. In September 2008, you finished the job for him. I’m sure Osama is rejoicing and thanking you in his cave.

I am outraged. You have failed America! You should hang your head in shame!

Letter to Congressman and Senators

I have just read that the government is going to bail out AIG. At this point there may be no alternative if our financial system is going to survive. But you have presided over a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super-wealthy upper class. Under the Bush administration taxes were reduced on the upper classes to the lowest rates in generations, beginning the transfer of wealth. What thanks did we get? The rich virtually destroyed the financial system. But to (hopefully) avoid the total destruction of the financial system, the government has undertaken a further massive transfer of wealth to the rich to bail out their investments. As they say, you have privatized the gains and socialized the losses. You have negated “moral hazard.”

The United States is significantly weaker than it was before the financial crisis. By failing to control the greed on Wall Street, you have undermined our national security, while poor rednecks are fighting two wars far from our shores. The government has betrayed our soldiers. Because of low taxes, particularly on dividends and other investments, the rich didn’t even contribute their fair share to fighting the wars. This bailout is now being done with money borrowed from China, the Middle East, and Europe, most of which will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren, although I suspect that at some point the government will let inflation run wild so that we can repay today’s huge debts with tomorrow’s worthless dollars.

Congress’s further contribution has been to run an expansionary fiscal policy of low taxes and deficit spending during years when the economy was not so bad. The Bush administration inherited a budget in surplus. Now, with the economy in shambles, it will probably be difficult to raise taxes for years, making the obscenely wealthy even more obscenely wealthy and virtually destroying the middle class. The entire burden of dealing with the financial debacle has fallen on monetary policy managed by the Fed and Treasury, because Congress’s corruption and incompetence have destroyed the usefulness of fiscal policy at this point.

I am outraged. You have failed America! You should hang your head in shame!

Wall Street Hates America

This Reuters article describes how Wall Street helps foreign investors avoid paying taxes on money made in the US. Clearly they don't care about 9/11, and the poor GIs fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because of it. No need for them to fund the GIs. To them those dead people in the World Trade Center are just long dead and buried; let the good times roll! Show me the money! Greed is good!

What Did McCain Do In The War?

I've about had it with McCain's incivility. The latest is attacking Obama for using the phrase, "Lipstick on a pig," referring to the McCain campaign's attempt to hijack the theme "Change." McCain tried to imply that Obama was calling Palin a pig, when Obama wasn't even talking about Palin. CNN found an example of McCain's using the "lipstick on a pig" phrase referring to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

OK, so McCain what did you do in the war? How many missions did McCain fly over Vietnam? According to this perhaps biased website, he was shot down in 1967 on his 23rd mission. He then spent 5 1/2 years as a POW. No doubt his years as a POW were awful, but his battle in prison was basically a personal battle; he did not do anything to help the US win the war against North Vietnam. The referenced column by David Hackworth, written in 2000, probably during the campaign when I supported McCain, also says that the many medals received by McCain upon his return from being a POW were basically boilerplate citations, not awards for individual acts of heroism.

So, what did McCain do for America during those 5 1/2 years? Not much. He spent much of it in bed due to his injuries, or in solitary confinement after he recovered enough to get out of bed. Those are extraordinary personal triumphs, but they don't win wars.

So, enough McCain! Shut up about being a heroic POW! Shot up about lipstick!

Speaking of POW. Basically, McCain used his celebrity as a returning POW to win his way into the House and Senate. His Navy career essentially ended when he was shot down as a lieutenant commander, far below his father's and grandfather's rank as four star admirals. He got some subsequent promotions when he was released, but like his medals, they were proforma promotions for any POW. His Navy career was respectable, but not a great success, especially for someone who graduated from Annapolis. However, the fame he acquired when he returned advanced his career outside the Navy.

It no doubt helped him woo Cindy Hensley, the Paris Hilton of her day. She was a rich heiress with a hot body. McCain dumped his old wife, who waited years for him while he was in prison, to marry Cindy and her money. His old wife never speaks; I think it's because he paid her off with some of Cindy's money. He has taken care of his children with his first wife, most recently illustrated by the fact that his son Andrew was a director of a bank that recently failed, and is also a big shot in the Hensley beer business.

Then with Cindy's money and his POW celebrity status, McCain won a House seat in Congress from Arizona, later upgraded to a Senate seat.

In Congress, McCain has been a maverick, which he can afford to be because Cindy has made him extremely wealthy. He doesn't have to worry about kowtowing to the big money lobbyists to get re-election money, which is good. But what about the big deal he makes about earmarks. Sure they are bad and McCain doesn't use them, partly because he has Cindy's money for re-election and doesn't need the dirty money that other politicians get for earmarks, e.g., Ted Stevens. But earmarks are basically an inside the beltway Congressional issue. Why hasn't he done something about them while he has been a Senator. He says he will veto any bill with earmarks, but we know from experience that the earmarks will be inserted in a bill containing appropriations for the troops in combat, or some other essential function. Will McCain be willing to veto that? He should be talking about some serious issues, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care, the budget deficit and the national debt, the stability of our financial system, etc. The Republicans have poor records on all of these issues, so McCain avoids the issues and talks instead about personalities, in particular personally attacking his opponents. It works for the election, but it's not good for America and illustrates that McCain doesn't really care about America, despite all his hypocritical campaign slogans like "Country First." McCain is not putting his country first.

McCain Bank Fails

I think it's odd that there hasn't been more talk about the fact that a bank connected to John McCain failed last Friday. Until shortly before its failure John McCain's son Andrew had been a director of the Silver State Bank. Only the Financial Times and the WSJ had brief articles about it. The WSJ implied that the FDIC may have been delayed in closing the bank by Nevada regulartory authorities, giving Andrew McCain time to quit as a director before it was closed.

Hometown Girl or Trailer Park Trash?

Everybody has certainly fallen in love with Sarah Palin. What does it mean?

CNN Showbiz Tonight this morning had a segment on how Sarah has become a bigger celebrity than Obama. Does that mean McCain will have to disavow those commercials comparing Obama to Paris Hilton? Would it be more accurate to compare Sarah to Paris, or to Britney, or to Britney's mom, since Britney's little sister has gotten pregnant?

Unmarried, pregnant, teenage daughter? No problem, "it just makes her more like you and me." Really? Well, we all have problems, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. People shoot their neighbors on a daily basis, but by and large they don't get congratulated for it. There are a lot of shotgun weddings, and a lot of unmarried, single mothers, but that doesn't mean it's society's ideal. It's a little suspicious that there was apparently no urgency for Bristol to get married to her baby's father until her mother got named vice presidential candidate. Does that mean they didn't care, that they didn't really like the boy, or what? Apparently the religious right in the Republican party says it's okay for teenage girls to have sex and get pregnant, as long as they don't get an abortion. That's a pretty low moral standard. I'm not sure there's a lot of Biblical support for that position, and maybe some criticism, like the Commandment not to commit adultery. Kids today reading Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter probably have no idea what the fuss is about.

In sum, while Sarah may have been an okay governor, she was a less than completely successful mom.

Meanwhile we have the black candidate, Obama, who comes from a tradition where black men routinely desert the women having their babies, but who has tried to have a traditional family relationship with his wife and kids. His wife says she tries to do only campaign day trips so that she can be at home with her kids afternoons and nights. Did Sarah do that while she was working on her career? Or did her career come first, ahead of her family?

Finally, besides wanting to know what Sarah knows about foreign policy, what else does she cares about. She didn't go to a big name school, no elitism there. But does she read? Does she know anything about Plato, Locke, Samuelson, Shakespeare? What music does she listen to? Does she have in-depth knowledge about the economy, or does she get everything in sound bites? Is she more interested in hockey than war and peace? It doesn't take much effort or intelligence to be a hockey mom. It takes more to be vice president, or at least it should. I would like the Vice President to be someone with a little culture, refinement and background. My impression is that in terms of upbringing and social status, she's no Margaret Thatcher.

The problem with people with little education and experience is that they tend to reinvent the wheel, even if they are smart. They don't know what other smart people have thought about similar problems before, and what solutions worked and what didn't. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. While Obama has relatively little executive experience, he is well educated, and so far, no matter what you think of Harvard and elitist institutions, they do tell people important things, and if you learn well, it helps in life. Bush's problem is that he went to Yale but made a point of rebelling against it, as McCain did at Annapolis. Remember that Cheney flunked out of Yale; maybe we should have paid more attention to that before we put him in a position to start a war with Iraq and order the torturing of prisoners.

McCain's Risky Foreign Policy

Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times says McCain would be a risky foreign policy maker. He says McCain is too prone to take risks, as illustrated by his selection of Sarah Palin as his VP. His risk taking may work sometimes, but there is the potential for tremendous damage if it comes out wrong, which is possible when dealing with Russia, which he dislikes. Thus McCain is not the "safe" choice for commander-in-chief. Rachman sees the possibility of an even more aggressive foreign policy than than pursued by Bush.

McCain's Intelligence

While this Mother Jones article raises several disturbing issues, for me the worst is the connection between McCain's main foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, and Ahmed Chalabi. This article says that Scheunemann was one of Chalabi's acolytes, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld among others, in his effort to get the US to invade Iraq. Chalabi wanted to replace Saddam Hussein, but ran into too much opposition. He has remained a central figure in the new Iraq, although usually just below the public appearance level. The last I saw he was the head of rebuilding Baghdad, a job that gives him lots of money to siphon off to his Swiss bank accounts.

This MJ article sheds some light on my concern that there may be some truth to the Russian allegations that Bush and the Republicans encouraged Georgia to invade South Ossetia in order to help John McCain's campaign. McCain apparently shares my view that there is no love lost between the CIA and President Bush, and perhaps by extension other Republicans, including McCain. Thus, I think it's unlikely that there would have been an official CIA operation encouraging Georgia to invade. I'm less sanguine about the military, and the MJ article says that's where McCain wants to shift intelligence responsibilities. That would certainly reinforce suspicions that if there were some kind of clandestine effort to foment a war in Georgia to help McCain, the effort would have been led by the US military, not the CIA.

I doubt that the US did anything official to foment war in Georgia, but Scheunemann's connection to Chalabi makes him even sleazier than I thought he was before. He may well have done something to stir things up through his unofficial contacts with Georgians. It also helps explain McCain's rabid stance in favor of the Iraq war. If looks like if you vote for McCain, you're also buying Scheunemann and all his lobbying clients.

Terrible Campaign

I'm disappointed with myself for the previous posts criticizing McCain's POW experience. I don't think they are wrong, but I am mad when others, such as the Swift Boat Veterans, criticize Vietnam veterans for their service. Now, I'm criticizing McCain for his service. But it's tough on veterans. I was thinking tonight watching the Republican convention praise the military to the heights, that a very small percentage of the US population serves in the uniformed military. But the vast majority is motivated to praise them, because the majority doesn't want to serve. It wants to make money. So, while it praises military service, the majority thinks, "Please let those fools keep going to Iraq and Afghanistan, so that I don't have to."

What has gotten me so mad at McCain & company is the dirty campaign they have been waging. One of the first things that set me off was McCain's accusation that Obama cancelled his visit to wounded troops in Europe because the military would not let him bring press. There seems to be no basis for that claim; it's just another way for McCain to call Obama unpatriotic.

Tonight, Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee attacked the current Democratic presidential nominee at the Republican convention. As some of the CNN commentators said, it was questionable, but perhaps forgivable, for Lieberman to speak for McCain, but it probably crossed the line when he attacked the nominee of what is supposed to have been his party. Now the Washington Post says that one of his charges was probably baseless. Obama did not vote against funding for the troops, as Lieberman claimed. Again, like the claim about not visiting the wounded troops, the false claim attacks Obama's patriotism. This strikes me as extremely low and sleazy. It illustrates that McCain and Lieberman have poor moral character. Here are two United States senators lying about one of their Senate colleagues. The Senate is truly a nest of filthy snakes! Poor America!

Sarah Palin's Daughter

The almost universal hesitancy to criticize GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin and her daughter for the daughter's pregnancy while in high school raises questions about how Republicans (and Americans in general) feel about women. One the one hand, Palin's selection by McCain seems to indicate that Republicans think women are ready to govern. On the other hand, by saying that it's okay to get pregnant in high school, they are saying, "We like our women barefoot and pregnant. Women don't need no education. Just keep turning out them babies." But if they happen to get through high school and college, then they are qualified to be vice president.

Which is it Republicans? McCain might say, "Hey, women don't need education. Just look at Cindy. She's a total airhead. All women need is a big inheritance. I dumped my first wife because she didn't have one, and she wasn't as hot looking as Cindy."

I'm glad Obama doesn't say impolite stuff like this, but I am sincerely disappointed that McCain has turned out to be such a sleazebag.

McCain's Nasty Campaign and POW Status

Obama's statement yesterday refusing to comment on Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy shows the distance still remaining between his campaign and McCain's. McCain's negative attack ads dragged Obama down somewhat, but he is still far above McCain in the decency of his campaign.

The Economist this week talks about McCain's bio in an article entitled "No Surrender." It says, "After failing to dodge [a surface-to-air missile], he ejected from his plane, broke three limbs and fell into a lake. He was dragged out by a mob, stabbed in the groin and beaten nearly to death." It does not comment on the the major decisions in that sequence: to have ejected from the plane, not to have fought to the death despite his injuries, or not to have committed suicide before the mob captured him. It is arguable that the honorable thing for McCain to have done, especially in light of the fact that his father was the senior Navy commander in his theater, would have been to go down with his plane. Allowing himself to be captured placed his father in a terrible position. His father dealt with it, perhaps appearing callous, but perhaps he felt that his son had failed to live up to the family's naval tradition. McCain had a horrible career at Annapolis; then unlike the majority of his cohorts, he got shot down, and when he got shot down, he allowed himself to become a POW. It's not a sin to become a POW, but it's not heroic either. It became more heroic for Vietnam war POWs because it was one of the few things that the country embraced, probably because they were freed only when the war was over, and thus there was no need to use them to oppose the war. The regular veterans came home to contempt from their civilian counterparts, who saw them as tools used by the government to pursue a war that civil society opposed, and therefore as war criminals regardless of whatever courage and decency they may have displayed in combat.

Ironically, Vietnam POWs probably got treated more like heroes than POWs from previous wars, while ordinary veterans got treated worse. McCain came to believe the hype surrounded his return, deserved or not, and now is basing his presidential campaign on it.

I'm guessing he failed to live up to the standards of his four-star admiral father and grandfather, and in response tends to downplay their service. It order to portray Obama as an elitist, he tends to portray his four-star father as something only a little better than a bag-boy at Safeway. In reality, McCain was a failure by his father's standards.

Fortunately, Obama is too polite to say anything like this.