- The words "I fought corruption" should never pass the lips of a charter member of the Keating Five.
- "I fight for you" is a clever tag line, and I presume the image that the McCain campaign has settled upon. This will allow them--just barely--to keep making the ridiculous claim that John McCain doesn't like to bring up the fact that he was a POW. If John McCain didn't want to bring it up, he would have instructed his staff not to mention it to every single person they talk to, including the barista at Caribou Coffee.
- Ack! The dreaded "Free America from Dependence on Foreign Oil" meme rears its ugly head. This is high definition hogwash. Drilling isn't going to save us from Demon Oil any more than windmills will. It might make us some money. But we'll still be part of a world economy that will be pigheaded about buying their oil from funny people who don't even speak English.
- John McCain does not seem particularly comfortable talking about God. The lines are there, but they're mechanical, clearly recited by rote.
- McCain claims he'll cut government spending. I'll believe it when I see it.
- Boy, the folks at the RNC really hate national health care.
- Just as with Obama, the actual policy/issues content could have been taken straight from the RNC! Greatest Hits 1980-2004 compilation album. McCain's main contribution is the shocking revelation that--you probably didn't realize this--he was a POW. I'm more impressed by his delivery than I was by Obama's, but that's because my expectations were lower than they were for Obama--objectively, Obama's delivery was still probably better. Frankly, the Fog of War has erased the thing from my mind. It's probably PTSD from all the blinking things on the convention stages.
- The other major change isn't really a change--it's a relative shift to emphasizing the martial virtues. This, I think, is why Kerry seemed so ridiculous "reporting for duty"--his political persona was about as far as you could get from the warrior ethos. McCain is the real thing. Too much of the real thing, for my taste--he seems to think that the values that guide a brigade should also guide the nation at large. This is a bad idea for the same reason that we should not be run by the codes of the Bar Association or the Hippocratic Oath.
« The John McCain video | Main | Absence makes the heart grow fonder » McCain's acceptance speech04 Sep 2008 10:32 pm
Again, scattered thoughts:
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference McCain's acceptance speech:
» Bonus Quote of the Day from Liberal Values Comments (142)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
McCain was a POW?
Why am I just hearing about this now?
I thought he was just an SOB.
I sure would like to hear some more substance from these candidates soon. What worries me about the Palin/McCain ticket most is their energy policies (especially in regard to drilling in the ANWR). Given the current state of our environment, I think it is important for us, as consumers, to support 'green business.' For example, http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.
Seriously, what exactly is it about the word "drill" that makes these people flip out so much?
And yet no less than Democratic lawyer and Clinton friend Bob Bennett exonerated John McCain of any wrongdoing in the Keating 5 scandal.
It was a good speech. More drilling, more energy. If anything too much green wussiness.
He handled the Obama scum protesters well. Jesus, what low-lifes those people are.
Good speech for McCain. Time to go to town on that racist Obama.
I thought the economy/education stuff was pretty strong, albeit hopelessly vague, and the kind of thing Palin should've talked about. And of course, a powerful peroration. Rocky start, but if you're going to be rocky that's the time to do it.
If I hear "Maverick" one more time, I'm going to vomit. Remember, this guy voted with Republicans; he was part of the problem. Now, I feel like he's claiming he can be the solution.
At least we got recognition from him of just how lousy Republicans have been at governing. I'm grateful for that. But what's he going to do about it? McCain says he knows how the world works, knows the good and evil in it. Seems to me some of the most evil men I know of spoke at his convention, so I guess he's right. But I don't think he'll ever hold them accountable.
So much for personal responsibility. The Republican party is imploding. So sad they'll blame it on McCain and Palin instead of Cheney, Delay, and Abramoff.
I didn't realize the protesters were from the Obama campaign. I thought they were against the war or something.
It's strange to see a convention that revolves so much around John McCain the man, given that most GOPers HATE him. Then again, I say that as someone from Kentucky, which is about as red as states get.
It'll be interesting to see if the bloom is off the Palin rose after the reminder of who is atop the ticket. Should be fun!
"What worries me about the Palin/McCain ticket most is their energy policies (especially in regard to drilling in the ANWR)."
The thing that worries you most about our next president is that we might get more oil from Alaska? I'm all for a healthy environment, but we need resources too. Besides, couldn't we drill in a manner that's relatively friendly to the environment? I imagine oil derricks and pipelines can be placed intelligently to not affect wildlife much. And they could give us more resources to use on other things, including help the environment in different, more efficient ways.
I saw a man who truly knows God from his experience alone, broken, and he is not uncomfortable, but humbled. Futhermore, Senator McCain has always been a champion against pork spending. I conclude that I saw a completely different speech than you. Keating Five? really? Is there a chance you may be auditioning for a job at MSNBC?
Drilling is needed to get us time to deal with our energy needs. Nuclear and various alternative sources will solve the problem in the long run, but we have to get there first.
This is not a drill. Libertarians everywhere be advised.
re: "Given the current state of our environment,"...
Gimme a break.
Yes there are certain aspects which have gotten worse, but the big, huge obvious ones like air & water pollution -- unless you live in China -- are generally much, much better.
Anyone born before the 70s knows that.
Nothing in the speech about social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. It was mostly economics and security. I agree there's nothing new but isn't that a conspicuous omission? I think it shows McCain has moved in a libertarian direction or at least wants to give that impression.
I liked the guy who was holding up a sign that said "MAVRICK."
Somehow that one dumbass bit of incompetence sums up the entire conservative movement and the dead end it has reached.
The Keating 5 jab is a smear. Both McCain (Republican) and
John Glenn (Democrat) were cleared by the investigator, but letting them off would have left only 3 senators, all of them Democrats. The Democrats wouldn't let McCain off without a censure and leave only Democrats, so the Republicans retaliated by not letting Glenn off without a censure. Both honorable men were slimed.
The Hippocratic Oath is a guide to treating someone else based on their dignity as a person and not using them as a subject of your benefit. It is thus an ancient insight into ethical interpersonal behavior. This leaves aside discussion of abortion which I think can be approached with the same principles. The problem with the Hippocratic Oath as a guide to behavior is that it leaves my conclusions to inductive reasoning based on the examples given in the oath which taken specifically only in the instance of abortion can lead to misapplication of the general principle.
Re: the warrior ethos and the brigade. A Southern veteran told me that 'he could not turn his back on the flag like General Lee did.' There are ideals that he found in his brigade and trial is what he was saying there. I thought he made clear in recounting the death of his grandfather, the forced absence of his father etc. that war = loss
and that as Cicero said war should not be used for aggression.
You better be nice to Senator McCain and Governor Palin, Megan, or they will delete your comments.
"McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981.[8] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[14] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln."
That seems like quite a "smear."
I find anyone discussing drilling in ANWR as a bad thing hilarious. I've actually been in the ANWR, I've been up to Prudhoe Bay. The area they want to explore for oil isn't an area that would impact wildlife.
There's no reason not to drill for oil there, besides environmentalists living thousands of miles away wanting to preserve something they've never seen, nor will see.
"Nothing in the speech about social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. It was mostly economics and security. I agree there's nothing new but isn't that a conspicuous omission?"
I'm glad he didn't spend time on those issues because they don't really have anything to do with the long term health of our government, at least not in the same way deficit spending does. Social issues don't really seem to excite McCain much. His personal beliefs may be in line with the Republican platform, but he doesn't spend a lot of time dwelling on them. He's far more interested in fighting government waste and terrorism than he is in legislating personal morality.
Thanks for mentioning China. Progressives opposed to drilling off our own shores only make it more likely that we'll have some foreign power drilling off them - just a little further away.
The question then becomes a simple one: would you rather have an American oil company drilling 75 miles offshore, or China drilling 80 miles offshore?
Which one do you think will pay more attention to our environmental concerns?
The oil company that pays crazy money to investigate a field 20 miles from a swamp (er, wetland). Or the guys who can't even see a quarter mile down Wangfujing Street on a sunny day? (Where they live.)
Why do hyperpartisan people who aren't open to anything from different sources even bother to spread their dogma? Yeah, you'll easily see to whom I am referring unto above. We all shouldn't agree, but we should listen. Far too little of that anywhere.
Newscaper:
Having been born in 1970, I can agree whole-heartedly with you. The environment is MUCH better now than it was when I was born by almost any objective measurement.
And I agree, drill here, drill now. And FARM the caribou. I want reindeer burgers served in the lower 48 in time for Christmas.
I see someone knows how to use wikipedia, without attribution. If one reads the entire Keating Five article, it says clearly McCain and Glenn were not found guilty of misconduct. Mr. Bias (above) was so kind to omit that.
Farabal says: "I see someone knows how to use wikipedia, without attribution. If one reads the entire Keating Five article, it says clearly McCain and Glenn were not found guilty of misconduct. Mr. Bias (above) was so kind to omit that."
I guess we have different definitions of misconduct, then.
Let's play this part again: "McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln."
McCain likes to pretend that he has never become a Washington whore, but evidently he doesn't mind getting big tips from his johns.
The "I'll fight for you" phrase is straight from Hillary Clinton.
Trying to solve the energy crisis by drilling is like trying to pay off an ARM by selling your plasma.
"Remember, this guy voted with Republicans"
TR: In the 110th Congress Obama voted with the Democrats 96% of the time while McCain did so 88.3%.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/
Neither is fully independent, but Obama is less so, Can you imagine Obama being in something like the "Gang of 14", which angered the hardcore members of both parties? I know I can't.
"I liked the guy who was holding up a sign that said 'MAVRICK.' Somehow that one dumbass bit of incompetence sums up the entire conservative movement and the dead end it has reached." ML&J
Yeah I said to the screen "Uh Maverick has an 'e' in it fella." However I think in every convention there's likely some morons and probably some drunks too. Panning to them is kind of a sign of idiocy.
Okay speech for a guy who is not good at giving speeches. Everyone will apply their subjective eye to it. I assume the McCain campaign just wanted him to get through it without a problem (which he did) and establish the basis for a few campaign arguments. And probably to avoid attacking anyone. No harm, probably no significant benefit at this point unless he is sucessful in making the campaign arguments take hold.
It might play better than it looked. The Larry King show just flashed a couple clips on fighting and changing Washington that made him look pretty good. He then showed he "fight" close which also looked pretty good in the replay. He then showed several more clips and they all looked good. So it might turn out to be a much better speech in sound bites/advertisements than it was sitting through it.
Successful convention. Race probably is a toss up at this point. It likely will turn on whether someone makes a serious mistake, whether some crisis happens in the world, and whether the negative ads against Obama hurt him.
Too much of the real thing, for my taste--he seems to think that the values that guide a brigade should also guide the nation at large.
For those interested, this is a decent introduction to "the values that guide a brigade", from the brigade commander down to the non-commissioned officers and the enlisted men. Some of the religious and martial elements of this might not be everyone's cup of tea, but generally speaking I don't think there's much to be offended by and a lot that's very good advice for people in all circumstances, professions, etc.
What concerns me about McCain is not that he represents martial values. I have tremendous respect for martial values. I'm bothered that McCain seems to default--both in foreign policy and in dealing with colleagues--to the most aggressive option, and that he does not respect people who have good-faith disagreements with him. Those aren't "the values that guide a brigade."
Keating 5? Jeesh.
I wasn't a McCain fan, but I was impressed by the speech and came away feeling that even if I didn't always agree with his policies, that he was a man motivated by the right spirit.
I guess in this day and age, anything short of hearing exactly what you want to hear is worthy of cheap shots.
Jim: Why do you automatically blame Obama for the protesters? One who was interviewed is a veteran who intends to vote for Bob Barr. He protested to draw attention to McCain's record of voting against legislation that would benefit veterans. I don't know about the other protesters' affiliations, but my guess is that neither do you.
I came away thinking McCain-Palin are more authetic than Obama-Biden. The more I watch Obama, the less I like him. Too fake. McCain, just the opposite.
McCain's necktie had no red, white, or blue in it. He must hate America.
Hi, Megan. I have seen you mention that while you are not enthusiastic about either candidate, that you will likely be voting for Obama in November. As a small "l" libertarian, and someone that is completely depressed over the prospect of either a McCain presidency or an Obama presidency, I have leaned reluctantly toward McCain.
I would be very interested in what has you leaning the other way. Hope you have time to respond.
"Government that doesn't make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself." So, McCain will now support a woman's right to choose an abortion in consultation with her doctor?
Exactly, authenticity. And gravitas. Obama's political record reads like nothing so much as an attempt to deliver the minimum requirements of high office as quickly as possible: win an election by default, hold the job for a year or two, put his name on a couple of bills, and run for higher office. I'd like to think he's put his heart into something, somewhere other than the next campaign, but I've yet to see any evidence of it.
I'm still not going to break my no drug warriors rule and vote for him, but if authenticity counts for anything, McCain and Palin are going to win.
Really now, examples please.
I'll evaluate peter jackson''s comment in light of a comment he made on his blog about Palin:
"There would finally be a prototype of a strong conservative woman that was more positive than Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly. "
Since a maggot is more positive than Ann Coulter and Schlafly that's a very low hurdle.
And the most gripping moment of his speech was when he looked straight ahead and plaintively declared "I hate war." It was obvious to anyone who saw him that he really, really meant it.
Really now, examples please.
Type McCain temper into Google and browse the search results. Note that many of the incidents described aren't just examples of a man losing his temper--they're examples of a man proudly declaring a lack of respect for his colleagues.
As for whether McCain's foreign policy views are evidence that his default setting is one of aggression, that would turn this from a debate over McCain into a debate over American foreign policy, Iraq, Russia, etc. I'm happy to just agree to disagree and keep the thread a little less cluttered.
Even as a harsh critic of McCain I'll concede that his gun-slingin' approach to foreign policy seems to be a late-90s development that intensified in the wake of September 11. His inability to treat people with respect on a personal level seems like a much more deeply-ingrained character flaw.
"The words "I fought corruption" should never pass the lips of a charter member of the Keating Five."
Megan, no matter what, I will always love you for that line.
My scattered thoughts have deepened my cynicism. McCain did not have the presentation of a man who believed he was winning; he seemed wistful. The dichotomy of his picking Sarah Palin, from the camp in the party which scuttled his campaign in 2000 in the primary, may have something to do with the fact that it has been reported perhaps $10 million was donated by her supporters after he picked her but prior to his accepting the nomination (when federal financing kicked in). I remembered that in 2004 John Kerry had $14 million in unspent funds left over from his presidential primary campaign, four million of which he transferred to his Senate campaign. The candidate controls these funds within parameters, but they are not returned, win or lose.
peter jackson directs another fantasy: "And the most gripping moment of his speech was when he looked straight ahead and plaintively declared "I hate war." It was obvious to anyone who saw him that he really, really meant it."
I saw him, and I think he was completely full of shit. Elect McCain and we're guaranteed at least two more wars in the next four years. There is nothing in his public life that suggests he is averse to war - nothing.
Put your country first. We have lost your trust ... We work for you. The bickering is mostly because of those coming to Washington to work for themselves.
This is what I heard and it carried sincerity that the person saying it was different and has been country first. There's not a lot of cleverness about John McCain. I don't think he can schmooz. He's too real, whether you like what he is or not. I liked what I heard from him and heard strands of statesmanship I wish - if only - we could have that. Palin has demonstrated cutting excess and things that touched her comfort zone and embellishment of her office. These people have demonstrated the ideal.
Hope is rising. If only we could really have some of that ...
On a more frivolous note, it's a shame that McCain's been saddled with the label "maverick," since it's actually Iceman who makes a consistent and principled case for military values. And Iceman McCain would be a great nickname for a US president.
Megan, I am confident that your mother was impressed.
The "I'll fight for you" phrase is straight from Hillary Clinton.
I typed that phrase into Google and it came back with Foreigner lyrics.
Megan, why are you so sure that McCain will not cut government spending? Hell, that's the main reason I am supporting him.
Franklin writes: "Palin has demonstrated cutting excess and things that touched her comfort zone and embellishment of her office. These people have demonstrated the ideal."
Palin was an earmark-sucking goober who craved the Bridge To Nowhere until it became a symbol of excess and stupidity. Pretending that she's some sort of honest crusader is simply ridiculous.
"Elect McCain and we're guaranteed at least two more wars in the next four years." ML&J
TR: Let's say he wants to do that. How's he going to when you consider that the Congress is almost certainly going to stay Democratic? How many wars has Bush started since 2006?
trey wonders: "Megan, why are you so sure that McCain will not cut government spending? Hell, that's the main reason I am supporting him."
She's sure he won't cut government spending because she's not retarded. Reagan didn't do it. The Bushes didn't do it. McCain won't do it. It's a horseshit promise Republican candidates always make and never live up to. Their base keeps swallowing it. I suppose that's because their base is composed mostly of people who have to take their shoes off to count past ten.
I saw him, and I think he was completely full of shit. Elect McCain and we're guaranteed at least two more wars in the next four years. There is nothing in his public life that suggests he is averse to war - nothing.
Well maybe when you were watching him tonight you were fantasizing about something else. But from your statement it's difficult not to infer that you believe all war to be volitional. That would be where you and McCain differ.
Oh, and thanks for reading.
yours/
peter.
"The words "I fought corruption" should never pass the lips of a charter member of the Keating Five."
I really must take strong issue with you about that quote. I understand it was supposed to be stream-of-consciousness.
But perhaps you are too young to have actually been in Washington at the time? McCain was only included because all the other wrong-doers were Democrats. This has been recounted a thousand times by Bob Bennett, a Democrat, and legal console for the committee. It is an established fact.
For you to recount that episode, adding more to the continued falsities spun out about McCain, is beneath you, I think. You do seem to try to be fair all the time, which is better than most bloggers (including me).
MoeLarryAndJesus says (above):
"I guess we have different definitions of misconduct, then."
The "we" here would be you and whatever Senate Committee did the investigating. Just which party was in control then (1991-2)? Oh, dunno.
If you are criticizing Senatorial investigative panels in general, I'm right there with you.
TR quotes and writes: ""Elect McCain and we're guaranteed at least two more wars in the next four years." ML&J
TR: Let's say he wants to do that. How's he going to when you consider that the Congress is almost certainly going to stay Democratic? How many wars has Bush started since 2006? "
Fair question. I'm surprised we haven't invaded or at least bombed Iran yet. McCain could easily do it by saying it was a necessary extension of the Iraq war. Cheney has been pushing for this for at least the past year.
I think it has been ONLY the 2008 election that has held off an attack on Iraq. Once elected McCain won't have to worry about an election for 4 years, and he'll have free reign as he sees it.
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Can you tell me what makes you think he was kidding?
Hmmm... I guess one of the protesters was a Paultard, and the others were from Code Pink. Still waiting to hear if they're officially with the Obama campaign as Kim asserted, above.
Kinda like Instapundit blaming Obama for MoveOn's Betrayus ad earlier tonight.
I guess by this logic I can assume John McCain wrote Obama Nation. Oh... Right. I guess I can assume Salter wrote it. McCain doesn't do his own books.
peter jackson again: "Well maybe when you were watching him tonight you were fantasizing about something else. But from your statement it's difficult not to infer that you believe all war to be volitional. That would be where you and McCain differ."
McCain served in one pointless, useless war and then he voted for another. Both wars were entirely volitional and had nothing whatsoever to do with actual defense of the United States.
If McCain thinks otherwise, then fuck yes we differ.
The video.
And the fact that he can't even sing the line without laughing.
yours/
peter.
I like Mc Cain, but I about choked when he mentioned "fighting for Indian tribes"... as in, Ralph Reed?? Jack Abramoff ??
So, Ralph Reed is raising money for Mc Cain but conveniently not showing his face at the actual event now. How is that good?
And, what in the world was that confusing story about how he is going to "pay some of the difference" between the job someone lost due to outsourcing, while they work at a lower paying temporary job and attend community college to retrain?! HUH??
Was anybody else listening to this speech??
How does that idea go with "lower taxes, less government?"
There's more.. go back and read the speech! Were you asleep??
peter jackson quotes and writes: " "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Can you tell me what makes you think he was kidding?
The video.
And the fact that he can't even sing the line without laughing."
Because he thinks it's funny. Dead Iranians make him feel happy inside.
Remember, he was against torture until he refused to vote against it.
Let me know if you're aware of a use of US military force that he was against. And if there was one, it was probably one that occurred under Clinton.
I absolutely love the RNC! Greatest Hits 1980-2004. Megan, no matter what, that and the Keating Five line will mean I will always love you.
Yeah let's see, "dead Iranians make him feel happy inside," or
this.
See: razor, Occam's.
I'm heading over to Protein Wisdom now. Thanks again for reading!
yours/
peter.
Yes, WE were. Here is what he said: "I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes."
peter jackson again: "Yeah let's see, "dead Iranians make him feel happy inside," or
this.
See: razor, Occam's."
I notice you don't bother to give me an example of US military force that he was opposed to. See: dodge, cowardly.
McCain's over-the-top reaction to the Russia-Georgia conflict tells me that he's a fucking nutjob in search of an apocalypse.
Peter Jackson, don't you dare give Moe that razor, he's just going to hurt himself with it.
I can see now what Megan meant by patrolling the posts!
Like most blogs, it seems the regular posters are devoid of civility and completely incapable of shedding their meanness of spirit. What makes so many so totally lacking in charity, and filled with hate?
There seems to be nothing so black and white, so cut and dried, as leftist and rightist fanatics. If it were only so easy for the rest of us to be as certain as to how things are....
Re: Keating 5 scandal...
Wasn't that when Senator McCain became a born-again ethics reformer?
I disagree with a whole bunch of what he considers ethics reforms (some of which I consider violations of the 1st amendment), but he's certainly made an enormous and genuine effort over the last two decades to fight corruption among his fellow legislators. And he's done so at substantial political cost.
Even assuming he did something atrocious during the Keating 5 thing -- why isn't it enough to admit error; work to make up for any harm he might have caused; and dedicate two decades of service to fighting corruption?
It hardly seems out of line for him to now claim credit for the things he's actually done...
... or would you also argue that someone whose house was purchased in collaboration with Rezko should never be allowed to take credit for any positive actions he might take to fight corruption?
"'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.' Can you tell me what makes you think he was kidding?" ML&J
TR: I don't think he was entirely kidding, but what makes you think he was all that serious?
This is a guy with an occasionally weird sense of humor. Witness the Chelsea Clinton thing. The statement is a kind of sing-song nonsensical, which might reduce the idea it's a serious policy proposal. Plausibly it's a form of brinksmanship that's more about saying "you know I could bomb you" rather than saying he actually will bomb Iran. Clinton was certainly willing to bomb all kinds of things. As was JFK and LBJ to a degree.
Ridgeliner7, I don't think it's really ideological certainty for most of us. I think it's just human nature to fight back against people who insult us.
In fact, if you look at most uncivil arguments on this or any other blog, you'll find that there are only a few degenerates like MoeLarryAndJesus who actively go out of their way to start fights. Usually they have some excuse about how Dumbya started it by torturing the poor terrorists, but really, they just get a kick out of trash talking over the internet. Politics is just a pretense.
Most of the other people who are name-calling are simply responding and retaliating. It isn't necessarily right, and arguably we should all take the high road and ignore the trolls. But human nature is to fight back, and so that's what many of us do.
Or, in the words of one of science fiction's more charaismatic diplomats:
Physics tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. They hate us, we hate them, they hate us back. And so, here we are, victims of mathematics!"
- Ambassador Londo Mollari
'The words "I fought corruption" should never pass the lips of a charter member of the Keating Five.'
Oh please. I was an Arizonan then -- and a Democrat. Keating had gotten a letter from Alan Greenspan saying he was solvent and he employed over 2000 Arizonans. Senators do what Senators do: Beat up on bureaucrats to protect their constituents. If Greenspan had been right, the Keating five would have been heroes.
Anyway, McCain was cleared of wrongdoing.
I like McCain's '00 speeches, when he still cared and had a real reform issue to work with. This hardly seems like the same man, and I miss him,
He's right that the GOP HAS screwed up and needs reform, but two obvious things were missing in his speech. He wasn't willing to talk atall about what did go wrong, not even WHY the Surge he's so proud of was needed. Worst, he offered NOTHING to fix it other than a change of the nameplate in office, and the worry of an extremist who fired a librarian for not censoring her town's library possibly inheriting the Presidency.
My gut thinks a man ready to serve as President should be able to show more leadership on those issues, if he's a continuation of the party in power. Especially a party so unpopular and corrupt. Gore '00 isn't my idea of great Presidential leadership, but he did show leadership on those issues.
So, I take it you support government restrictions on oil production?
And you favor national health care? Wow, either I've stumbled on a different writer than I thought or I'm in the Twilight Zone.
The codes of the Bar assocaition? at least with the military and medical profession, there is honor.
This election pits two public servants against two self-serving lawyers, who have nothing that does not feather their nest in preparation for a political career.
In 1989 the Senate Ethics committee was run by Democrats. They needed to make the Keating three a bipartisan scandal. McCain was hauled in for nothing more than the usual legal but sleazy fundraising. Poor John Glenn was in the same meetings as McCain so he had to be sacrificed for the party. McCain's association with Keating was no worse than his associations with countless other sleazeballs that will always hang around where the money is. The worst thing the scandal did was prick his vanity and get him started on the transparently unconstitutional campaign finance reform.
John McCain did not strut the political stage over the past 20 years boasting about his war experiences and family history. Now that he is running for President, the time is appropriate to reveal the true DNA of a presidential candidate. His life experience does and will influence his decisionmaking as President. This speech clearly delineated the major differences between McCain and Obama on every level. McCain is comfortable with who he is and where he's from: Obama is still shopping for the proper church to call home. McCain has strong opinions and ideas: Obama is still formulating his ideas. McCain has a more surgical can-do personality; Obama suffers from paralysis by analysis. McCain's life story doesn't have any gaps or question marks; Obama's life is still a mystery as regards his childhood and his years at Columbia and whether he was an affirmative action acceptance for college and law school. Obama changed his vote on six separate occasions in the Illinois state legislature the day after the vote, claiming he was misunderstood or that there was a problem with the button. I was undecided prior to the DNC and the RNC-----now my choice is McCain. I fault the media for giving Obama a pass and superficial analysis because of the anti-Clinton sentiment and the color of his skin.
Watching the speech last night you could see that McCain was strongest when he spoke of his life defining ordeal as a tortured POW, and his fervent dedication to defending this country and its ideals.
Plus I sure as heck don't want all three branches of government held by the same party. We see what that got us last time in terms of spending, and I cant imagine if its the Democrat party that we will see anything different this time.
Sarah Palin will be the American Margaret Thatcher. Dem-Libs whine about how much the Europeans hate us...well guess who they're about to fall in love with? The British already are running Sarah Palin stories. Everyones predicting a "close election" but not me...Obama and his anti-woman ticket are toast, baby!
"McCain was a POW?
Why am I just hearing about this now?
I thought he was just an SOB."
Frankly, you're undeserving of the personal sacrifices this great man has made for you and for his country.
I wouldn't trade one of him for 10,000 of you.
Fortunately for you, though, he would.
No one seems to have noticed that McCain talked about the world economy, free trade and the need to be competetive rather than protectionist. Obama is running on being a protectionist and anti-globalist. McCain, at least last night, endorsed free trade. That is definitely in his favor.
The POW stuff was very effective. First, he never said he was that great. He talked about the people he was with and how they were great. Second, he never said "I was a POW vote for me". He said, this experience is what gave me the values I have. There is a difference. The first is what Kerry tried to do.
I don't get Megan's and Reason constant bitching about "Martial virtues". If you listened to McCain's speech, he gave a laundry list of things people could do to help the country and none of them invovled electing him President and none of them involved government compulsion. Maybe it is because Megan has zero experience around actual martial virtues, but she doesn't seem to get the idea that martial virtues are compulsory. You don't get to choose as a warrior. You do what you are told. If anything is martial in this campaign, it is Obama's plan to force high school and college kids into "national service" in order to get college aid. Everyone going out and joining a government created organization and doing the service they are told to; that Megan is martial. I wish you would ding Obama for it once in a while.
Keating Five? The new standard is that nobody gets a second chance, ever?
Is the druggie Obama out of the running? Or are you a bit inconsistent depending on your likes and dislikes?
The biggest problem with McCain is his overreaction to the Keating Five scandal. Yes, he did wrong and recognized it. However, his attempt to push money out of campaign financing just brought us unaccountable 527s. Laws won't make people virtuous and ultimately the voters get what they will tolerate. Evidently they will tolerate a lot.
I am really tired of the sniping about McCain brining up the POW issue. First, go back look at what he said. He talks about how it made him who is he is. That is different than saying, "I am a POW vote for me". That is no different than anyone else talking about experiences in their life.
More importantly, the guy won the medal of honor. As far as I am concerned he can talk about it non-stop for the rest of his life. I am sick of people who have never done anything for this country beyond write a few blog articles bitching and moaning about those icky war hereos always talking about the past. Pound sand Megan.
jblog says: "Frankly, you're undeserving of the personal sacrifices this great man has made for you and for his country."
He was having a fine old time bombing women and children and then he got shot down. He didn't willingly get shot down, so that's no "sacrifice." And yes, he behaved well in captivity. That was 40 years ago. He has spent the years since behaving a whole lot less well. He has spent the past 7 years sucking up to war criminals and abandoning his own stated principles. He eventually came to support the use of the same brutal treatment he received as a speculative weapon in the so-called "War On Terror."
He has become a disgrace to his former self.
Keating 5 thing is unfair.
Two contradictory facts:
1. Keating gave McCain the most money of the 5.
2. McCain did the least for Keating. All he did was call and tell the bureaucracy to make a decision yay or nay but he was very specific when he called he wasn't pushing them one way or another, just to make a decision. He only did that once.
John claims: "More importantly, the guy won the medal of honor. As far as I am concerned he can talk about it non-stop for the rest of his life."
He did not win the Medal of Honor. Stop lying about his record.
By the way, McCain also lied about his time as a POW in his speech last night. He said he'd been beaten and tortured for over 5 years. According to Dr Phillip Butler, who was a POW for 8 years, the period of brutal treatment ended when Ho Chi Minh died. Butler himself suffered 5 years before that - McCain only two. Butler has written a moving account and an explanation of why he feels McCain is not suited for the job of president.
Now go ahead and defame Butler, who sacrificed more than McCain did. Because we both know you're shilling for party, not country.
And another thing - with all of the lionization of Cindy McCain's father, I missed the part about how he was a mobbed-up convicted felon. Why was that part left out?
MoeLarryandJesus,
You have never so much as taken a shit for this country. You get to live every day fat dumb and happy safe in the knowledge that you can be a complete insulting troll and never have to worry about anything. All of that thanks to people like McCain. When you see people like McCain you should just say thank you and let it pass. He fought so you can be an ignorant vermine and thank God you have the freedom to be one. I love this country.
MLJ is correct. McCain did not win the Medal of Honor. However, he was awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, which sounds pretty impressive to me.
I have only seen clips from McCain's speech, but what I saw was about the strong defender in a dangerous world. Palin's speech had some of that rhetoric, and I must confess I'm tired of it. We all know the world is dangerous, but terrorists are not the only problem we face. I respect McCain's war record, but I'd like to hear a bit more about the role diplomacy will play in his defense of Americans. Did he address that in the speech?
He was having a fine old time bombing women and children and then he got shot down. He didn't willingly get shot down, so that's no "sacrifice."
News flash, MLJ: Not everyone leads a life so sheltered and privileged as yours. If you have never had to leave a family behind in service to your country, perhaps forever, then you would do well to quietly thank your lucky stars that better men than you have.
What would John Kerrey, John F. Kennedy, and Daniel Inouye say if they heard you talk like that? After all, JFK didn't willingly get a boat shot out from under him, either. And Daniel Inouye didn't willing leave his arm on a battlefield in Italy.
My sense is that had you encountered them in their prime, after they had returned from their faithful service to their country, they'd kick your sniveling, pimply ass.
John writes: "You get to live every day fat dumb and happy safe in the knowledge that you can be a complete insulting troll and never have to worry about anything. All of that thanks to people like McCain. When you see people like McCain you should just say thank you and let it pass. He fought so you can be an ignorant vermine and thank God you have the freedom to be one."
John McCain's service is admirable, but it had absolutely nothing to do with protecting me or this country. The Vietnam War was a damned atrocity from start to finish.
John Kerry served, also, but he did a greater service for his country when he came back and joined the anti-war movement and told the truth about that disgusting war.
By the way, calling me "ignorant vermine" would work better if you could spell "vermin" correctly.
I love hypocrites like you, John. You go on and on about how much you love freedom, but nothing pisses you off more than when someone uses it. You're a disgrace to America.
Steenwyk says: "What would John Kerrey, John F. Kennedy, and Daniel Inouye say if they heard you talk like that? After all, JFK didn't willingly get a boat shot out from under him, either. And Daniel Inouye didn't willing leave his arm on a battlefield in Italy."
JFK and Inouye fought in a war of actual self-defense. Kerry (the actual spelling) did not - and did his better service to his country when he came home and told the truth. And we all saw in 2004 how much the Republicans honored HIS service.
"My sense is that had you encountered them in their prime, after they had returned from their faithful service to their country, they'd kick your sniveling, pimply ass."
My sense is that they all had/have enough respect for the real ideals of the country they served to see dissent as a right, and they would do no such thing. But I like how you raw meat conservatives react to such dissent - always - with the desire for violence.
I suspect that John and Steenwyk and folks of their ilk throw a party ever year on the anniversary of the My Lai massacre and get drunk on cheap beer while talking about how tough they are and how Rusty Calley is a great American - but I can't prove it. But I have no doubt that they honor Calley's service. None at all.
I genuinely honestly believe that McCain and John Glenn really, really oughtn't to be lumped in with the other three in the Keating affair, and the investigations into it concur pretty well with me. There were at best three "charter members" and two screw-ups. And it's very much to McCain's credit that he nonetheless talks about it as though Ms. McArdle's picture is accurate.
Maybe if folks can forgive you for the two-by-four comment, you can move past McCain's involvement in the Keating Five. Or, failing that, you can give equal time to some of the scandals around Obama, e.g., his relationship with the convicted slumlord Tony Rezko.
And failing that, you could ban whoever is pretending to be me, no doubt some uppity brother who finds me too niggardly to be tolerated.
Ever since I made a brief admission about my bisexuality in my youth, Ive had someone impersonating me.
I thought liberals were tolerant of homosexuality. Or is it only homos who went to Harvard? No working-class stiffs I guess.
I must join the "Keating Five? Are you off it?" chorus.
If what McCain (not the three guilty ones) did regarding Keating is corruption that means he never gets to talk about fighting it, then I'm a Communist*.
I don't have a huge amount of respect for John McCain (McCain-Feingold? No thanks!), but I see no reason to believe he acted corruptly regarding Keating, nor that his corruption-fighting is anything but sincere (if, again re. McC-F, misguided).
* I am not now, nor have I ever been.
Sigivald is a communist! He said so himself!
You have been Noonanized.
I wonder why nobody is talking about the fact that Gov Palin is under investigation for high crimes in Alaska...
Actually, Troll, a number of people ARE talking about that. But the fact that she is under investigation is meaningless. Clinton was under investigation for one thing or another during most of his term.
What counts isn't whether someone is under investigation. Any political opponent with motive and some clout can put anyone under investigation at any time.
What counts is whether a sober, impartial review of the facts, if all relevant facts are known, will reveal wrongdoing, and whether a reasonable man, using the reasonable man standard, would agree that what was done was, indeed, wrongdoing.
If you can make the case, then by all means, bring it. I don't think you can. The case against falls apart once the reasonable man gets to the part about threatening a governor's family member and tasering a ten year old.
If there were someone like that on the public payroll, and Palin knew about it, and DIDN'T press to see the man fired, then she should be investigated for deriliction of duty.
The more people like that Palin fires, the better, in my book.
Steenwyk says: "If there were someone like that on the public payroll, and Palin knew about it, and DIDN'T press to see the man fired, then she should be investigated for deriliction of duty."
It's "dereliction," chuckles. And the trooper in question had already been investigated and disciplined. If Palin did what she is accused of doing, she was going outside of the usual channels and abusing her authority. But then you approve of bully-boys and criminals like Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney and what the scumbags did to Valerie Plame, so you approve of what Palin seems to have done.
Your sort worships power and enjoys seeing it abused.
A senior McCain campaign official tell Marc Ambinder that, "despite the gaggle of requests and pressure from the media, Gov. Sarah Palin won't submit to a formal interview anytime soon. She may take some questions from local news entities in Alaska, but until she's ready -- and until she's comfortable --which might not be for a long while -- the media will have to wait."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/05/palin_will_avoid_the_media.html
I saw him, and I think he was completely full of shit. Elect McCain and we're guaranteed at least two more wars in the next four years. There is nothing in his public life that suggests he is averse to war - nothing.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 5, 2008 12:54 AM
Moe, it doesn't matter what Republican is on that stage and it doesn't matter what they are saying, you would think he/she was full of shit. So frankly, who gives a damn? Why waste the bandwidth?
If Palin did what she is accused of doing, she was going outside of the usual channels and abusing her authority.
Technically it might constitute misuse of her authority, but voters aren't likely to care. Misusing your authority in order to get bad cops kicked off the force is the kind of "misuse" voters like to see. That's why I don't see "Troopergate" as a winner for Obama.
I like how my alter ego is completely unaware of the fact that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to the press.
To be fair, it is a rather inconvenient fact if you are trying to push the "evil neocon conspiracy" meme.
Elect McCain and we're guaranteed at least two more wars in the next four years.
Why would the Democrats authorize two more wars in the next four years? Or did you forget that Congress has to sign off on that sort of thing? I guess McCain could order forces into battle without authorization from Congress, but how would he pay for it? Congress still controls the purse strings.
Paul claims: "Moe, it doesn't matter what Republican is on that stage and it doesn't matter what they are saying, you would think he/she was full of shit."
That's untrue. There are a number of Republicans I hold in high regard. I've even voted for some of them in the past.
Some current Republicans I respect - Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, Lincoln Chafee, Arnold, Ron Paul, and John Warner. Of course none of them are SuperChristian wackaloons.
Dan quotes and writes: "Elect McCain and we're guaranteed at least two more wars in the next four years.
Why would the Democrats authorize two more wars in the next four years? Or did you forget that Congress has to sign off on that sort of thing? I guess McCain could order forces into battle without authorization from Congress, but how would he pay for it? Congress still controls the purse strings."
I've already addressed this, but for the shockingly naive who don't know how reality works I'll answer it again. He would start the additional wars as "add-ons" to the two existing conflicts, of course. He'd invade or bomb the shit out of Iran claiming it was necessary for the stability of Iraq. He'd do the same in Pakistan with respect to Afghanistan - as though that hellhole has ever been stable.
Of the two candidates running, only Obama has publicly advocated the immediate invasion of our nuclear-power ally, Pakistan.
Steenwyk says: "Of the two candidates running, only Obama has publicly advocated the immediate invasion of our nuclear-power ally, Pakistan."
That's a misrepresentation, of course. And we're already making attacks inside of Pakistan and have been doing so for some time.
Apparently, the syntax "publicly advocated" is lost on you.
I'm not going to bother explaining to you the importance of plausible deniability to the Pakistani government, either. Grown-ups know what I'm talking about.
I don't consider you one, though.
Steenwyk writes: "Grown-ups know what I'm talking about.
I don't consider you one, though."
Fine with me. I don't think you're human. I'll bet you and Victor Davis Handjob love all the same TV shows, though.
The reason that the OPEC cartel is able to have such a large degree of control over the price of oil is that they control such a large portion of the market supply. The way to fight that is to increase the supply not under their control and diminish their influence. Also effective is to reduce the size of the market for oil by bringing alternatives (windmills, solar, nuclear, etc) into the equation to the extent reasonably possible, even if only on the margins. In every way that we flip the market from a sellers' market to a buyers' market, we reduce their influence over us and increase our influence over them.
Macro Economics 101, no?
"JFK and Inouye fought in a war of actual self-defense." ML&J
TR: You know I kind of like Inouye. Not that I agree with him that much, but he seems kind of okay. I guess he was too old, and *Asian, for Obama to pick as VP. It might've been interesting though if he'd picked a veteran. It could've canceled out the appeal of that.
I'm not an Obama supporter, or even considering it, I'm just talking strategy. The Biden pick was sensible, but dull and doesn't seem to have helped him much.
*I have a feeling in the calculus of these things "two non-Whites" would be seen as "pushing it."
On another issue ML&J I think some of what you say actually has merit, but you fill it up with so much raving and unfunny meanness it just kills the point. Have you at least considered expressing your anti-Republican views in a more reasoned and less hostile way?
TR asks: "On another issue ML&J I think some of what you say actually has merit, but you fill it up with so much raving and unfunny meanness it just kills the point. Have you at least considered expressing your anti-Republican views in a more reasoned and less hostile way?"
I'll be glad to - just as soon as the Republicans return to their senses and stop supporting war criminals and reasonless bigots. It's possible that the vicious beating they're about to get in November will cause the party to purge itself. We'll see.
I think my "raving" is very funny, TR. I suggest that the guilt you feel at ever having voted for living, breathing pieces of shit like Dumbya and Dickless precludes you from admitting it.
"I think my 'raving' is very funny, TR."
TR: Humor doesn't work like that. Other people have to find you funny. Do other people here find you funny? Saying you find yourself funny is meaningless or, respectfully, a form of narcisissm.
And I voted for Bush in 2000 when I thought he was a "compassionate conservative" against abortion and for finding conservative ways to help poor people. The Bush of 2004 I didn't vote for. I'm to be blamed for something I did 8 years ago? I never even did anything for his campaign except vote for him that one time in a state he had no chance of losing. (He won my state in 2004 without my vote)
TR quotes and replies: ""I think my 'raving' is very funny, TR."
TR: Humor doesn't work like that. Other people have to find you funny. Do other people here find you funny? "
Why, yes, TR, and many have said so. Not just here, but in many other forums and places online and off. Granted, not many of them are wingnut SuperChristians, but then the things such people find funny don't amuse me - at least not in the way their creators intend it.
Some people think Carrot Top and Dane Cook are funny. I don't. Some people didn't think Sam Kinison or Bill Hicks were funny - they're two of my all-time favorites.
Some people think Dumbya Bush has been a good president. I think that anyone - ANYONE - who thinks that is a complete, irredeemable frigging idiot. How about you?
"And I voted for Bush in 2000 when I thought he was a "compassionate conservative" against abortion and for finding conservative ways to help poor people. The Bush of 2004 I didn't vote for. I'm to be blamed for something I did 8 years ago?"
I'm glad you reformed yourself. I still think you should regret that vote, but I wonder if you'll revisit it by making the same mistake with McCain.
I don't think you're human.
Unfortunately for you, that statement says nothing about me. And everything about you.
"I think that anyone - ANYONE - who thinks that is a complete, irredeemable frigging idiot. How about you?" ML&J
TR: I think many people think many things for many reasons and I'm not fit to judge them. I do not personally think he has been a good President. At the same time I don't think he's been quite the disaster he's been claimed to be. Despite what the Democratic Convention said this is not the Great Depression.
Besides that I think we did need to go into Afghanistan and end the Taliban. I think Danforth ending the war in Southern Sudan through diplomacy was good. I think a greater attention to AIDS in Africa, even the preferencing of an ABC approach, was good. I thought his compromise on stem-cell research was fair and reasonable.
However he was never good on the environment. He is a truly awful speaker who made himself worse by insulating himself from reality. These two things could've been overlooked, if the other things were so great, but starting with the war in Iraq it all starting coming undone. I supported that war, at first, but he ran it badly and didn't do what I thought we were going to do. I didn't care about WMDs, but I did care about starvation, threats to neighboring countries, and human rights. These have not been improved much or at all. On top of that my worse fear when I was a supporter, that even if good the mission would provide a pretext for purely bad "preventive wars", now seems to be on the verge of realization. Then he showed an excessive devotion to loyalty and cronyism. Also proposed idea which might not be bad, but were politically idiotic. (The Social Security thing) And of course Abu Gharaib, supporting Uzbek dictator while allegedly trying to expand democracy, etc.
"I wonder if you'll revisit it by making the same mistake with McCain." ML&J
TR: I will vote for McCain yes, but the situation is not the same and he's not the same. The whole "90%" thing is a bit of a crock because we don't get a sense of what it means or that Biden votes with Bush about 77% in many years. McCain is more independent of his party than Obama is of the Democrats. That's just a fact and I can cite the data to show it. Would Obama do something like join the "Gang of 14" or co-sponsor legislation with the most liberal members of the Senate? Well maybe, but he hasn't. Obama did work with Richard Lugar, but Lugar is about as moderate as a Republican can get outside of New England.
On the situation in 2000 Republicans had the Congress. In 2008 they don't and aren't likely to get it back. There's no way he can be a repetition of Bush, unless you mean Bush Sr.
"legislation with the most liberal members of the Senate"
I meant "the most conservative." Obama is among the most liberal.
I take that back. Obama did co-sponsor the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006", which had some very conservative co-sponsors. Also more moderate Republicans like McCain.
"Of the two candidates running, only Obama has publicly advocated the immediate invasion of our nuclear-power ally, Pakistan."
Jason, man, come on. You know what Obama said. If you think you have to lie in order to convince anyone, the facts must not be on your side. Obama said if he had actionable intelligence on where Osama bin Laden was, and he was inside Pakistan, and the Pakistanis refused to get him, he would send US forces or ordnance into Pakistan to take him out. He didn't "advocate the immediate invasion of" Pakistan.
McCain said that was a dangerous error in judgment and seemed to be saying that he wouldn't strike bin Laden inside Pakistan without Pakistani approval. But you're surely aware that within the past week, the US has actually sent combat forces into Pakistan to combat Taliban guerrillas. And we weren't even trying to get bin Laden himself. McCain has been ostentatiously mum on whether he thinks the US is foolishly violating international law, attacking an ally, whether George Bush lacks the experience to be Commander-in-Chief, or what exactly he thinks of the fact that Obama's take on this situation has proven strong and realistic, while his own take is dangerously weak.
Some things are best left unstated - at least publicly.
The fact that Obama hasn't figured that out yet tells me he's not ready to be the CinC.
TR replies: "I think we did need to go into Afghanistan and end the Taliban."
But we didn't. The Taliban is stronger now than at any point since before the invasion - they're controlling much of Afghanistan again.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan to the extent that it might result in the capture of bin Laden. The Bushpigs screwed that one up, too. As Dumbya admitted, he no longer cares about capturing him.
The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is a senseless failure and is very close to falling apart completely no matter who is president.
brooksfoe writes: "Jason, man, come on. You know what Obama said. If you think you have to lie in order to convince anyone, the facts must not be on your side. Obama said if he had actionable intelligence on where Osama bin Laden was, and he was inside Pakistan, and the Pakistanis refused to get him, he would send US forces or ordnance into Pakistan to take him out. He didn't "advocate the immediate invasion of" Pakistan."
It's no longer possible to be a movement conservative without lying constantly about almost everything. Perhaps it never was.
"The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is a senseless failure and is very close to falling apart completely no matter who is president." ML&J
TR: Yeah I'm pretty much just against that and think you don't know what you're talking about.
TR again: "Yeah I'm pretty much just against that and think you don't know what you're talking about."
Then you should probably look into the situation there more closely, because I do know what I'm talking about.
But I guess we can always blow up some more wedding parties to make you feel better.
Things are worsening in Afghanistan, but you'd have a vested interested in thinking they're worse than that.
And sure everyone who disagrees with you wants innocent people to die. What are you 12, 9?
TR replies: "Things are worsening in Afghanistan, but you'd have a vested interested in thinking they're worse than that.
And sure everyone who disagrees with you wants
innocent people to die. What are you 12, 9?"
You're the one with the juvenile attitude here, Tommy. Innocent people ARE dying - and a Karzai spokesman called the last wedding party that got blown up "martyrs." That's a fact. And I don't have any "vested interest" in anything except facing facts honestly. In case you missed it, Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan, just like McCain does. I think they're both wrong.
Let's review, Tommy. You were wrong about Bush. You were wrong about Iraq. One would think that someone with your proven record of incompetence in such matters would be a little more humble. But I guess you think that sooner or later the law of averages will kick in and one of your decisions will turn out to have been correct.
The whole thing was pretty offensive, if you just highlight it you get something like this: http://www.236.com/video/2008/watch_the_rnc_in_a_minute_8773.php
Hilariously horrifying.
Excellent send-up of McCain's bogus efforts to suck up to nitwits: http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_the_cross_8755.php
"Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan, just like McCain does." ML&J
TR: Exactly good for him.
"Let's review, Tommy. You were wrong about Bush. You were wrong about Iraq."
TR: I was wrong 5 years ago and even then I wasn't as wrong as you think.
The fiercest argument I had then on the two issues was with people saying
1: America is going to become a Fascist state under Bush - You may think it has, but if so you have no idea what the word "Fascism" means. Hint under a "Fascist state" the opposing party does not retake the legislature and the Supreme Court does not go against the leader.
2: We'll invade Iran by 2008! - Didn't happen.
http://nightshadebooks.com/discus/messages/258/258.html?1194355518
You really don't know me well enough to know if I'm wrong more than right. I do know you well enough to say you're acting like a child.
Tommy replies: "I do know you well enough to say you're acting like a child. "
You don't know me for shit, Tommy. Meanwhile you said you hope McCain dies early on so Sarah Palin - an unqualified wackaloon - becomes president.
You're the child. And a slow one at that.
I've seen a Sarah Palin before. She was called "Jane Swift." Look her up, you might learn something. Only that's a little unfair to Swift, who wasn't as close to the wingnut fringe as Palin is.
As for what America has become under the Bushpigs - it has become a state which openly and proudly uses torture. You may be happy about that - evidently it doesn't bother you much - but it revolts anyone with any real sense of decency. And when you vote for McCain you'll be voting for a bastard who pretended to be against torture until the time came to stand up. When that time came he greased himself up and bent over for the Bushpigs by refusing to vote against their use of torture.
You're not a war criminal yourself, you just vote for them. You make the Baby Jesus cry.
"Meanwhile you said you hope McCain dies early on so Sarah Palin - an unqualified wackaloon - becomes president."
TR: Now you're just a damn liar because I never said that. I never would say that. I find such a statement atrocious I have consistently said the opposite of that. (I think Palin is not qualified to be President and I've never said she was)
Maybe someone using my name said that, but someone using yours said he was a schizophrenics. Still you go ahead, find a post where I said that.
And I'm done with you. I thought this was just kind of a friendly tussle or good-natured brawling, but if you're going to start lying about me and such you're not worth it. You almost make me want to actually help McCain-Palin rather than merely vote for them in a state that hasn't gone Democrat since 1964 anyway.
TR replies: "Now you're just a damn liar because I never said that. I never would say that. I find such a statement atrocious I have consistently said the opposite of that. (I think Palin is not qualified to be President and I've never said she was)
Maybe someone using my name said that, but someone using yours said he was a schizophrenics. Still you go ahead, find a post where I said that."
I thought it was you, but I can't find the post and I'll admit my mistake. Perhaps someday you'll be adult enough to apologize for your "childish" insult. But I've had enough experience with movement conservatives to figure that won't happen.
TR adds: "You almost make me want to actually help McCain-Palin rather than merely vote for them in a state that hasn't gone Democrat since 1964 anyway."
So why vote for vampires if it doesn't matter? Why not go for the Libertarians, or write in Mickey Mouse?
I routinely do that sort of thing when unhappy with the major party candidates. Why exactly are you compelled to vote for shit?
(And yes, McCain-Palin is a ticket made up entirely of shit.)
I said you were behaving childishly. I'm not saying this is your nature, only your online persona at the present. When you stop using terms like "Bushpigs", "Repiglicans", etc I'll apologize for the statement.
Also in 2004 I wrote in the name of an American Indian politician. I have written in the names of dead authors or fictional characters when people run unopposed. I do not feel this situation is the same as 2004.
And I'm not a "movement conservative", I don't think, but then again I'm not sure what that means. I've attended two Republican gatherings, neither of which I liked, and both of which I did on parental urging. I'm not fond of reckless tax-cutting or prayer in school. I think Lynn Westmoreland and Rush Limbaugh are morons while Ann Coulter is a psycho.
I really shouldn't even be talking now, but I'm weak I guess. Or I'm a sucker for trolls.
TR again: "I said you were behaving childishly. I'm not saying this is your nature, only your online persona at the present. When you stop using terms like "Bushpigs", "Repiglicans", etc I'll apologize for the statement."
When you stop yapping about "liberal that, liberal this," I'll stop thinking you're a movement conservative. It makes you sound like Rush Limbaugh and Coulter.
Your reflexive dismissal of all things liberal is simply stupid. Liberals won WW2. Your own faction had 6 years of complete control and fucked everything up - everything. It deserves to be mocked with childish names. And in November it deserves to lose.
Megan, if you add your voice of truth to this campaign you will end up with a wide readership. Palin is bad news. We need pushback from honest women in the media to counter the drivel we are likely to hear from the likes of Shiafly and Matalin. As a woman, I beg you to "woman" up for this task.