I Get It Now
McCain will just bore our enemies into unconsciousness.
Wow, that was the worst acceptance speech given by a nominee in my memory. People say it was the worst since Jimmy Carter in 1980. Well, I don’t remember that speech since I was only 4 years old. But I will go with that.
Here are some reactions:
Joe Klein: “More a valedictory than an acceptance speech — more the end of a career than the beginning of a presidency.”
Andrew Sullivan: “Quite a deflation after the drama of last night with the sportscaster-governor. It made me realize how much I am still fond of this guy. And also clearer about why this is not his moment. The specifics were very vague, and the entire presentation based on biography, nostalgia and a kind of strained, exhausted mildness. His performance at Saddleback was much, much better. He seemed very tired to me.”
Jonathan Martin: “McCain hit all his message targets, eschewing partisan red meat to cast himself as a man who will work across party lines to reform a broken capital. But his delivery, especially in the first portion when he was discussing policy issues, was uninspired and did little to captivate the audience.”
Michael Crowley: “…this is a very underwhelming speech. Familiar points explained in pedestrian terms. No overarching themes–right now it’s sounding like a State of the Union laundry list. Even the crowd in the hall isn’t jazzed. This is the sort of reception Tom Ridge got.”
David Corn: “He offered an unexciting mix of GOP orthodoxy and declarations of personal maverickness–which was capped by yet one more long and detailed recounting of his POW days of forty years ago. Enough already.”
John McCain was not specific in the least last night, a charge he often levels at Obama, who was specific about the details of the change he would bring to Washington in his speech last week. Thus, McCain’s embrace of the “change” mantle is hallow and false. And it was obvious for all to see. What change would he bring? It seems to me that McCain’s change would be reaching across the partisan divide to enact a radical right agenda. Uh, that is not change. We have done that for eight long years.
Indeed, Bush also promised to be a change agent. Bush promised to work across the aisle. He promised to be a uniter, and not a divider. And what did we get: the most right wing conservative Presidency in the history of the United States. Yes, even more conservative than Reagan’s.
And McCain is promising exactly the same thing, especially now that he has Sarah Fucking Palin as his running mate. Indeed, all McCain brings to the table is an empty vassal. A McCain presidency seems to be mostly about his character and his experience as a POW. The policy specifics will be filled in by a radical reich Vice President.
Jesus Christ, doesn’t that sound familiar?
“Indeed, all McCain brings to the table is an empty vassal.”
Yes, it does sound familiar, since it’s exactly what Obama brings to the table. That is, a bunch of bullshit wrapped up in pretty “Hope & Change” packaging.
It’s funny how most of the print media panned it, but the talking heads loved it.
Humm…I wonder why?
“Is it Mike W….or is it Memorex?”
You know what else sounded familiar? The vote republican or die meme.
Radio Times has David Frum on now who is really unhappy with this speech. There is another counterpart on from Princeton Julian Zelizar who thinks it was just fine. Frum is now dissecting why he thinks Palin was a bad decision by McCain.
I have to say I bailed on McCain’s speech — I really just could force myself to relisten to the same failed promises from 2000. Really, if I had a whole lot of time, I would compare this with the GWB acceptance speech and I suspect that the same promises were made — but wrapped up in compassionate conservatism and claims of humility — and we know now that all of that was a lie.
What else was missing? The point that their party has been in charge since 2000 and now we have all of these failures to fix.
And I want to know how McCain is planning on reaching across the aisle when his convention just spent almost all of its time demonizing Democrats? How is he going to reach across the aisle when he cannot even make his own choice for VP without kowtowing the veto of the Christian right? How to you call people to their higher selves — those selves given to service to something other than themselves — by ridiculing the very real service of community organizers of all types?
This really is more of the same — lots of promise even though the fact that they’ll never live with those promises is right in front of your face.
did you hear the Hillary dead-ender call on Radio Times?
Issues be damned!!!
“lots of promise even though the fact that they’ll never live with those promises is right in front of your face.”
And somehow The Messiah will?
“You know what else sounded familiar? The vote republican or die meme.”
Hmmm, kinda like P. Diddy’s Vote (for Obama) or Die message.
Fine. It was a lousy speech. Even I will admit to that. Most of us Conservatives were never hot on the man to begin with. But once again, to see you assume MCCAIN will bring radical right policies…is…laughable. He makes Hillary look like a right winger.
BUT, America is much better off with him than with a radical marxist like Obama…
What…another wild right wing baseless charge…
hmmm…
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=305420655186700
But then again, most of you around here have wet dreams thinking about a Marxist society…so it will only probably fire you up.
But. but, Guns, but, but, Obama…dude…mike…got any new material?
I heard the Hillary dead-ender.
Those ladies never cared about the issues in the first place — they are cult of personality voters.
ooohhh….radical marxist! Scary!
fvckin tool
Well Chris, we might find your thoughts compelling if any of us thought that you actually knew what Marxist meant.
But way to push today’s talking point, guy!
Did I say a word about guns in comments to this post? No, I did not.
YOU might want to get some new material if you’re going to post crap like the above that makes no sense.
I vote that P. Diddy is the new Godwin for political speech.
“Well Chris, we might find your thoughts compelling if any of us thought that you actually knew what Marxist meant.
”
Oh I do, and Obama’s record tells me that he IS a closet marxists and firmly believes that such a philosophy is what’s right for America.
No, you might want to shut the fuck up if every single post of yours is going to be one of the following:
1. a gun rant
2. an anti-Obama rant
3. an accusation that other people do nothing but insult and demean you – which consists of insulting and demeaning them
Exactly Cass!
I vote that Chris is the new P. Diddy of conservative speech.
I, for one, welcome the triumphant return of Chris. I think he must have stopped posting months ago on doctors orders.
There just isn’t enough to laugh at in this world, and having Chris around goes a long way to solving that problem.
First line of the..ahem..OpEd from Chrissy’s link:
“Democrats’ reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.”
Too bad the author neglected to sign his/her name to it….I guess public ridicule was the reason.
I suggest not reading the rest….
It’s all fear-based conjecture and dog-whistling.
Johnny X
1. If I want to discuss guns with you folks I will.
2. If you guys are going to bash Republicans for things that are also perfectly applicable to Obama I will point it out, whether you like “The Messiah” being trashed or not.
3. Calling a spade a spade isn’t insulting or demeaning. If you are going to respond to me in a particular fashion in order to avoid addressing arguments I will call you out on it. That’s not an accusation. If respectfully telling someone to “put up or shutup” and actually address arguments is “insulting and demeaning” to you then I suggest you never discuss politics with anyone you might disagree with.
““Well Chris, we might find your thoughts compelling if any of us thought that you actually knew what Marxist meant.”
Oh..duh…I keep forgetting….if I am not a left-wing loonie bin…I must be a dumb, uneducated, knuckle-dragger.
I guess I may have missed the day they talked about Marx in my state run junior college…right?
In the real world, just so you know, it was covered quite heavily in economics, government, and even sociology classes at a PRIVATE fully accredited–four year University…while I was busy earning my 2 1/2 degrees in 5 years.
Sometimes Cassandra, you are the one I wonder if was ever educated beyond a little indoctrination class. Always dodge the issues and just aim for the messenger. Read the damn article and tell me what is innaccurate…..
“It’s all fear-based conjecture and dog-whistling.”
You guys quote annonymous posts from far left blogs as gospel, and an editorial in a LONG established magazine with a solid reputation is just fear-based conjecture and dog-whistling just because it shines light on the truth you don’t want most of America to see..since they won’t be as in love with such programs as you will.
Actually Chris – The thing about Marxism is that it’s actually quite appealing to many if you look only at the philosophy and not at the resulting application of that philosophy and the destruction (and redefinition) of individual liberties that accompanies it.
“I, for one, welcome the triumphant return of Chris. I think he must have stopped posting months ago on doctors orders.”
Nah..just couldn’t stand the all out porn postings on here over Obama. Seriously…you guys have to get out more.
I read it. Comment #21.
There’s nothing damning in it, except the exposure to the anonymous author’s warped mind.
Johnny X
1. If I want to discuss guns with you folks I will.
(HIJACK THREADS)
2. If you guys are going to bash Republicans for things that are also perfectly applicable to Obama I will point it out, whether you like “The Messiah” being trashed or not.
(TRUTH BE DAMNED)
3. Calling a spade a spade isn’t insulting or demeaning. If you are going to respond to me in a particular fashion in order to avoid addressing arguments I will call you out on it. That’s not an accusation. If respectfully telling someone to “put up or shutup” and actually address arguments is “insulting and demeaning” to you then I suggest you never discuss politics with anyone you might disagree with.
(SEE #1)
Really Chris? where?
A demonstration of some education would include not trying to push the talking point of the day as some kind of gospel. If you took at least one honest read of anything of either the Obama or Democratic platform, you would know for certain that Marxism is not in evidence.
But then, that would require from you both honesty AND some understanding as to what Marxism is.
But since your only response to the radio comedians who provide you your information is to 1) accept what they tell you as gospel and 2) to go to knee-jerk fear when they say the word Marxist, perhaps you need to return to your college for a refresher in how to vet information. Because if your professors could take back your grades based on the overly credulous crap you post here they surely would.
“The thing about Marxism is that it’s actually quite appealing to many if you look only at the philosophy and not at the resulting application of that philosophy and the destruction (and redefinition) of individual liberties that accompanies it.”
But history has proven how bad it is time and time again, which is why others on here don’t want the M word used with regards to Obama. Normal Americans know it as the failure it is. Then there are the bulk of the posters on here.
To Chris – holy crap, you went to school and got some degrees, want a cookie? I suppose putting private in all capital letters is supposed to impress us even more? Who’s elitist again.
To Mike – :yawn: Here’s my perception. Each time I click on this website now and see “mike w.” in the recent comments column, it just makes me cringe because I know exactly what the comment is going to look and sound like. It’s almost as if instead of being a real person you are a computerized comment generator where the topic of the post is put in (guns, Obama) and out comes some standard generated response.
I’m just saying it gets tiresome to me personally. You seem like a smart guy so I’d like to see you branch out a little bit instead of rehashing the same stuff over and over again. We all know you love you some guns and think any person who has ever tried to put any regulation whatsoever on how many or what kind you can own is a jackass. It’s well established. We all know that you think Obama is a closet socialist who is going to send the country to hell in a handbasket. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Now, got anything else to contribute?
By the way, please for the love of skydad don’t now post links for me to comments where you posted about other things besides Obama or guns. I don’t feel like reading through threads of 60 some posts, every other one by you. Thanks.
. . . . at a PRIVATE fully accredited–four year University…while I was busy earning my 2 1/2 degrees in 5 years.
Sounds pretty elitist to me. 🙂
It was Liberty University — no worries.
Chris, if the program’s been in effect for a while now in the Chicago area, why doesn’t the author offer some findings of former member’s political and sociological beliefs? Any study at all?
No…It’s a fright-piece; nothing but conjecture.
“Sounds pretty elitist to me.”
Well it wasn’t Harvard or Yale, so I guess I could never be a Democatic Presential Candidate”
“But history has proven how bad it is time and time again, which is why others on here don’t want the M word used with regards to Obama. Normal Americans know it as the failure it is. Then there are the bulk of the posters on here.”
Which is exactly why It’s fair to say that Obama doesn’t bring “change” he brings regression via the same failed policies of old in a shiny new wrapper.
Folks here don’t see it that way because they also believe those policies will work “If only the right people (Obama) are in charge.” The fact that history has proven the philosophy a disasterous failure doesn’t matter to them because they want to believe, because it sounds good, and because maybe this time it’ll work. Kinda like gun control. Insanity – trying the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
“Well it wasn’t Harvard or Yale, so I guess I could never be a Democatic Presential Candidate”
Really! You want to go there!
“I’d like to see you branch out a little bit instead of rehashing the same stuff over and over again. ”
Yup, you don’t like my perspective or my dissenting opinions so I should “branch out a little.” I seem to remember you folks saying the same in either the Time Out thread or the Banning thread. Funny. I don’t see many here “branching out” or being even remotely open to differing viewpoints. If you don’t agree with what I have to say I’d love for you to actually offer counterarguments based on the substance of that with which you disagree. Instead I see alot of close-mindedness, ignorance, and ridicule.
Where are the suggestions / discussions on how to address the violence in Wilmington that I politely asked for in the Markell thread?
“No…It’s a fright-piece; nothing but conjecture.”
And so you are in complete agreement with this part of it then?
“One of those -isms is “heterosexism,” which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of “capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege.”
What am I saying….of course you are….which is why the piece is just a “frigh- piece”.
“It was Liberty University — no worries.”
While I don’t share your disdain for this particular institution (ooohh–its got religion involved), I am not an alumus of it.
““Well it wasn’t Harvard or Yale, so I guess I could never be a Democatic Presential Candidate”
Really! You want to go there!”
Couldn’t pay me to go there.
There’s nothing there to back-up any of the hypotheses…especially, when it comes to associating the Obamas or that program to Marxism.
Precisely what I meant about “branching out” – in a discussion of the past failures of Marxism, you just can’t resist: “The fact that history has proven the philosophy a disasterous failure doesn’t matter to them because they want to believe, because it sounds good, and because maybe this time it’ll work. KINDA LIKE GUN CONTROL” (caps added for emphasis)
Yeehaw, come on pony, keep doing that one trick.
But you’re still here, mike….
No props?
McCain is the new Bob Dole.
Dole thought he was the elder statesman and deserved to be Prez because he had the most seniority.
So does McCain.
Frankly, this bodes ill for McSame; he has no ideas and he doesn’t communicate well. Sarah Plain&Scripted is going to be held incomunicado in AK because she’s not ready to do anything that doesn’t involve reading something that was written for her.
Bob Dole is the new Bob Dole.So says Bob Dole
(doing my best Norm McDonald)
So by “branching out” you mean that I shouldn’t talk about things that you don’t like eh Johnny? Gun control is relevant to a discussion of Marxism, especially in relation to Obama. Even moreso when I’m discussing it in the context of Obama and what doesn’t work. Gun Control doesn’t work. It’s a failed Marxist platform, a failed Democratic Party platform, and a failed Obama platform. Remember, the dems say “what WORKS in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne” and yet what they (and Obama) claim “works” in Chicago is in fact an abject failure. Despite this they continue to try it over and over again. Insanity fits.
Maybe you folks should “branch out” from the constant “everything is Bush’s fault and Republican’s are evil” meme.
“she’s not ready to do anything that doesn’t involve reading something that was written for her.”
Jade –
Have you seen Obama talking off the cuff? He’s as bad as Bush, especially if the questions are tough.
Actually, mike, unlike the majority of people here I am actually not all that “anti-gun.” I favor keeping them out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill but don’t really care much about other people having them. I just get sick of hearing you whine about it all the time and bring it up constantly even in contexts where it’s virtually irrelevant.
I’m out for now, I’ve got more important shit to do than this. I’ll look forward (NOT) to reading your 30 thousand posts patting yourself on the back for never being wrong about anything when I get home.
And please don’t counter that with some BS post about how “everyone on this site always pats themselves on the back and never admits being wrong blah blah blah” because I know it’s coming. Just spare me.
“I favor keeping them out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill”
So do I, only I don’t agree with the philosophy that the way to keep them out of “bad” hands is to enact laws that directly burden me. I always found it interesting that liberals understand this with regards to the “war on drugs” but deny it when guns are involved.
” to enact laws that directly burden me. ”
Nonsense.
Mikey is simply parroting the NRA partyline that *any* oversight is burdensome.
RE #16 on the Anti-Obama rants.
Give me a fucking break. Seriously. If I was instead ranting about how Bush/Republicans/McCain were evil you folks would LOVE it.
You don’t like it because I’m criticizing a liberal Democrat, your Messiah, plain and simple.
“Mikey is simply parroting the NRA partyline that *any* oversight is burdensome.”
Hardly. I support background checks, age limits on purchases, as well as the laws we already have barring purchase by violent felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill, drug abusers etc. The NRA does as well, in fact they supported the effort to strengthen background checks after the VT shooting.
As usual Jade your comments aren’t even close to being founded in reality.
Again, Mikey isn’t telling the truth.
The NRA steadfastly refuses to close the gunshow loophole where anyone can buy a firearm without a background check. The NRA also opposes any background checks on private sales.
Further, the NRA opposes enforcement of NICS denial proscutions.
I’d also add the NRA fought to deny police agencies to track and share information on illegal gun sales.
You know when you call Obama a “Messiah”, really you’re insulting yourself….
Only in your mind Von.
And Jade – Jesus do you ever cling to ignorance. The so-called “gun show loophole” has nothing to do with “gun shows” other than in name. I’ve discredited DD thoroughly on this point. I believe it was in the Markell thread. Go do some reading. The short answer is, you do have background checks at gun shows. Plain and simple truth.
You do realize that constantly proclaiming yourself the “winner” of every debate doesn’t make it so?
Mikey: You’re simply not telling the truth. In a number of states, sellers of firearms at gunhows do not have to be FFLs. Thus, they can legally sell guns without any background check.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/16/close_the_gun_show_loophole/
Heh, projecting haughty, fake praise on others is a tell-tale sign of a low self-opinion of oneself or one’s ideas.
…and we don’t do that to McCain, et al…..
No fake praise – just proper, in-your-face mocking!
” I’ve discredited DD thoroughly on this point. I believe it was in the Markell thread.”
Because, boise and goyles, Markell is ALL about gun shows.
“You do realize that constantly proclaiming yourself the “winner” of every debate doesn’t make it so?”
Do you realize that stating something that’s factually incorrect 10,000 times doesn’t make it so? (unless you subscribe to Goebbles) Jadegold is dead wrong, as usual.
“they can legally sell guns without any background check.”
In Delaware, I can do this in my house, in the supermarket parking lot, at the park, or at a gun show so long as I’m selling to a DE resident of legal age who is not a prohibited person. Whether or not I sell my gun at a gun show or somewhere else is immaterial.
If I were to start knowingly selling guns to violent felons I’d have the feds showing up at my door pretty damn quick. I also would be in deep shit if I started selling in quantity, on a regular basis. Do that without an FFL and you’ll be going to jail for a long long time.
Joe – It helps to read the thread in question before you prove yourself an idiot.
Let’s try this again.
This post is NOT about GUNS. This blog is NOT a GUN BLOG.
Come on now, P!
Keeping Mike from equating everything to guns, is like trying to keep a retarded beagle from peeing on the carpet….geesh!
The only other option would be to kick the beagle outside…heh….but that would be cruel.
No Mike, my idiocy knows no bounds. The point of my post was you hijack every thread. I know where the thread began and I saw where you drug it! Mike, I am pro 2nd Amendment, and just like Charlie, you’d have to pry it from my cold, dead hand. Here’s another zonker! I’ve actually been shot. I have had hot lead pass through my body! A shot fired in anger, baseless, yet still, anger. The existing laws today are not the laws that worked in the past. You have to give to get Mike. I hope we can discuss our views civilly face to face. Ask to see my wound! The scar is interesting. The lasting effects suck.
And I love you. Now go polish something.
Pandora and VC, I apologize to keepit going. I am done. D-U-N done!
Pandora and Von – I simply responded to DD’s blatant hypocrisy with an example of his own willful ignorance. That example involved guns, big deal.
Johnny brought up guns in this thread when they hadn’t been discussed an no one had as much as uttered the word “gun.” So quit your whining.
– Joe – I’m sure they do, I’m glad you’re alive and well after something like that.
“The existing laws today are not the laws that worked in the past”
I have to ask. In the past there were almost no laws on this issue. Isn’t it strange that gun crime has become an epidemic as gun control laws have come about? For many years there were few (if any) laws except those specifically aimed at keeping blacks disarmed. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail if you’d like to discuss/answer that question.
Joe, no need for apologizes. We all get sucked in, and the next thing you know we have 40 comments about guns on a thread about McCain’s speech. Truth be told, I’m enjoying watching other people pick up the torch. It’s exhausting.
Shot?? You were shot! I’m so sorry. But, hey, can I see your scar, too? 😉
” It’s exhausting.”
Yeah, I’m sure the constant variations of “*sigh*” / “blah blah blah you suck, you’re wrong, go away” are mighty tiring.
At least Nemski argued with me with some substance over at my blog. Yes, his argument was thoroughly disproven with facts, and he summarily disappeared, but at least he presented a coherent, albeit incorrect and irrational argument.
When I hear about gun shot wounds, I think about the description made in movie Three Kings. F’ing horrible!
First time, last time.(unless you ask me in person, and I’m not sure any of you exist.Except Jason,I’ve seen the shirt off and petition on him. Would a sit up kill him?)
Had a close friend. His lifestyle too deep in drugs and alcohol. One day we partied while his new marriage was falling apart. He brought out his G19 fresh from modification. We passed it back and forth. He showed me a clip of Hydro-Shock 9mm (ask Mike- I don’t know why civilians need these). Couple more drinks, inquires why I’ve been sleeping with his unhappy wife (never,never,never), pulls the Glock and points, I swing to slap the barrel away with my left hand(I’m a southpaw), BLAM!Through my palm, my shoulder and into the wall. My story isn’t unique and no law should have prevented the incident. The moral of the story is to focus on the issues at hand so not to move from the facts.
Damn Joe! You’re lucky to be alive.
Guns + alcohol NEVER mix. From your 1st sentence I knew where the story was going. He should never have brought it out to “show you” and if he had it needed to be put right back in the safe. He fucking got a mag, loaded it, chambered a round, pointed it at you and fired.
As for the Hydrashocks. Hollowpoint ammo is for self-defense. It is designed to expand for 2 reasons.
1. to inflict maximum damage on the target. Your goal in a defensive situation should be to incapacitate the threat as quickly as possible.
2. FMJ (non hollow-point) ammo tends to go through things rather than expanding and stopping in the target. If it goes through then it’s still a risk to any innocent bystanders in the area. It’s also not expending all of it’s energy and velocity IN the target.
Mike, don’t miss the point. I hope I have convinced you that I am an advocate for gun rights. If not, eh, you’re going to follow your own path. When the editors here crank out a blog on weapons is when you should lay it all out. Instead, you lay it out ALL THE TIME! You have deep seated feelings about your candidate, presidential or state, speak on those opinions!
Drawing out documented facts about firearms DOES NOT promote discussion on policy here.
Mike, I don’t know you but I trust you explicitly with guns (don’t ever betray that mfer) and the little I do know is you are more capable than NRA bullet points. I love you. Check your safety.
You f%$^&#g socialists are ruining this country! Go to Cuba and see if they let you blog there!
The point of the Second Amendment is to give the citizenry a chance to fight after some damn Marxist like Obama takes control. If Obama wins, look for Texasor Alaska to secede from the Union. I’m ready to buy my ticket.
See how far you parasites get after all the producers say FU and leave. The whole darn country will look like Detroit – you’re welcome to it if that happens.
What? I seriously dislike Obama but even I don’t think states are going to secede if he becomes President.
“You have deep seated feelings about your candidate, presidential or state, speak on those opinions!”
I have and I do. Although as far as Presidential candidates go I can hardly call McCain “my candidate” I just dislike him far, far less than Obama/Biden. Of course that tends to be the case given the Dems penchant for nominating far-left candidates and the Republicans pretty much lost all of the good things about being a Republican while retaining all of the bad.
XXX, get a good seat in coach. Watch your carry-ons, and tip your stewardess with a pearl neckless
Mike, so you have no horse in this race? Each has flaws to exploit, just not Rush’s points. Like Ron Paul? Promote Ron Paul. Bob Barr? Promote Barr. Tell us why you’re for sumthin’ rather than agin’ it.
Joe – My horse in this race is whomever is most likely to keep Obama / Biden out of the White House. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to defeat what would be a disaster.