President Bush Endorses John McCain
March 5th, 2008 at 10:59pm Mark Noonan
A party unifies behind its candidate:
It’s been my honor to welcome my friend, John McCain, as the nominee of the Republican Party. A while back I don’t think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party — except he knew he would be here, and so did his wife, Cindy.
John showed incredible courage and strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment. And that’s exactly what we need in a President: somebody that can handle the tough decisions; somebody who won’t flinch in the face of danger.
We also need somebody with a big heart. I have got to know John well in the last eight years. I’ve campaigned against him, and I’ve campaigned with him. Laura and I have spent time in their house. This is a man who deeply loves his family. It’s a man who cares a lot about the less fortunate among us. He’s a President, and he’s going to be the President who will bring determination to defeat an enemy, and a heart big enough to love those who hurt.
And so I welcome you here. I wish you all the best, and I’m proud to be your friend.
McCain answered with equal courtesy:
Thank you, sir. Well, I’m very honored and humbled to have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the President of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and affection [for]. We — he and I, as is well known, had a very good competition in the year 2000, and I was privileged and proud to have the opportunity to campaign for his election and reelection to the Presidency of the United States.
I appreciate his endorsement. I appreciate his service to our country. I intend to have as much possible campaigning events together, as it is in keeping with the President’s heavy schedule. And I look forward to that opportunity. I look forward to the chance to bring our message to America.
Last night, as you know, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton called to congratulate me. I pledged at that time, and I pledge again, a respectful campaign — a respectful campaign based on the issues and based on the stark differences in vision that we have for the future of America.
I hope that the President will find time from his busy schedule to be out on the campaign trail with me, and I will be very privileged to have the opportunity of being again on the campaign trail with him — only slightly different roles this time.
The past is the past - it can’t be changed; what we need in 2008 is a man who will take the situation we are in now, and build upon the success of the past, and learn from the errors. John McCain is a such a man, and a man much more likely to unify America than either Democrat, who have both pledged to negate all of President Bush’s efforts, as if a nation can set the clock back and pretend that nothing good has happened for 8 years. We need a President who deals in reality, not a President who kneels before political extremists of the MoveOn/Daily Kos variety.
The fall campaign, for the GOP, began today - we’ve a long, hard road ahead of us, but with faith in God that we will do the right thing, we have nothing other to do than fight for the just cause.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Political Endorsements, President Bush, Republicans
47 Comments
1. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | March 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
King Midas has bestowed his graces on McCain.
Incase you were wondering what slamming sound was, that was the independent vote walking out the door on you.
2. LiberalMind | March 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
GREAT NEWS!
A Bush endorsement is a millstone hung around McCain’s neck and thrown into the deepest of seas.
3. DonE | March 5th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
George W Bush-the man with the sidaM touch.
Oh, look. Here comes his latest gift for John McCain and the Republic Party.
TADA! An election-year recession!
4. Freedom1 | March 5th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
As the real Barack Hussein Obama is revealed - shady socialist Chicago politician- John McCain’s chances for being elected President of the United States dramatically improves.
Michelle Obama: America is ‘Just Downright Mean’ - The New Yorker
“FARC Endorses Obama” - (Gateway Pundit)
(via lgf) “The laptop computers captured from FARC terrorists by Colombia reveal that FARC is hoping and expecting that Barack Obama will be the next US President—and that unnamed “gringos” have been meeting with FARC to discuss it.”
5. congressive | March 5th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
You think Romney will co-host?
6. Robert | March 6th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Hmm… John McCain. A Republican who might actually bring a small bit of honor to this country.
Mark, I am not sure if you are aware of this, but even though McCain may have accepted Bush’s approval with respect, he has never approved of much of the Bush doctrine.
Watch the documentary “Why We Fight” and you will see what I mean. McCain seems to feel that the Bush administration went way to far on too little information to wage this little “war.” It was a planned war from the beginning, and 9/11 only gave the Bush admin. a reason to put into place their plan for a “one superpower world.” Even though he doesn’t come right out and say it, McCain implies that he at least in a small part agrees with this notion.
Watch the film, Mark. It is QUITE interesting. McCain is even shown in unsweetened (unproduced, ad lib) video talking about his opinions.
And before you start your usual BS of saying this film is “Liberal propaganda” you need to LISTEN to what they are saying. It is based on Eisenhower ( a REPUBLICAN) and his warning about the “military industrial complex.”
This film also explains that BOTH parties have been responsible for starting wars with no good reason except the expansion of America. This film is NOT a partisian attempt to appeal to “the Liberal agenda.” It is showing that ALL political leaders of the last 50 years have perhaps been swayed by the military and corporations controlling the military.
Watch the film, Mark. And take the blinders from your eyes. If McCain gets in, he might actuallly make this country a better place. I think the Democrats have better ideas, but McCain is at least a resonable man.
Geroge Bush screwed this country so bad that it will take McCain or any President years and tears to help turn things around. Let us hope that he, Hillary, or Barack can make a difference in what the Bush Administration did to ruin this land of the “free.”
7. Magnum Serpentine | March 6th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I hope george’s endorsement doesn’t hurt Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign.
8. Mark Noonan | March 6th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Robert,
Thanks for the trip down kookery lane…sorry, but I don’t buy paranoid theories. I know human nature - if things are screwed up, it isn’t because Big Oil or the Military-Industrial complex made them so. You want to find the person responsible for the problems in the world? Look in a mirror.
9. Mark Noonan | March 6th, 2008 at 12:24 am
NiP,
Perhaps, but will that independent go with ultra-liberal extremists like Hillary or Obama? Inquiring minds want to know - and we won’t settle that question until November.
10. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | March 6th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Mark-
Perhaps? McCain, by standing next to Bush, has just stated, on his first day out as the presumptive nominee of your Party, he agrees with the phrase, “Stay the Course”.
Independents, Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans want change. Where are the going to go for this change? Certainly not to a man who seeks the endorsement of the architect of America’s greatest strategic blunder in 100 years. A man who proudly accepts the endorsement of the most intolerant and sick forces of the “religious” Right? Do you think they’ll go to McCain with people like this surrounding him?
I think not.
When the Democratic fight is settled they go for the REAL change. Watch McCain’s numbers, which many here tout at the moment, drop like a stone in the coming months.
11. Mark Noonan | March 6th, 2008 at 1:09 am
NiP,
Perhaps - but as a small example of how that theory might be off, McCain enjoys a slight lead over Obama in New Jersey, and it is the independents who give him this strength, even though President Bush’s approval rating in New Jersey sits at 33%.
You simply must keep in mind that as 2008 unfolds, the overwhelming majority of the American people don’t despise President Bush - sure enough, the far left does, but even those who think President Bush is doing a poor job don’t hate the man, and won’t hate McCain because Bush supports him. Remember, a lot of people don’t support President Bush because he hasn’t, in their view, been aggressive ENOUGH in the War on Terrorism…or that he signed CFR into law…or that he teamed up with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind…or that he backed the comprehensive immigration reform…people who disagree with President Bush on these issues are not, however, very likely to pick HillBama over McCain at election time…they might not like McCain all that much, either, but McCain is still vastly better than the alternative.
12. Freedom1 | March 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Mark Noonan,
You’ve got to read this! The Biased-Media Cover-Up of the 21st century! (You should read how they refer to the 9/11 attacks. Disgraceful!)
Society of Professional Journalists Advocates Whitewashing Islam
(Mar 5, 2008) LGF, “If you’ve wondered why so many mainstream media stories about Islamic issues omit important details and draw spurious morally equivalent conclusions, wonder no more. They’re doing it on purpose. This was apparently released by the Society of Professional Journalists shortly after the 9/11 attacks: “Guidelines for Countering Racial, Ethnic and Religious Profiling.”
13. Robert | March 6th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Mark, So you’re saying that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a kook? Hmmm….
And by the way, I take every day of my life to try to make things better in this world. Working with people with disabilities to help them to live normal lives is far more important than starting wars in countries and worshipping the Holy dollar. Working as a teacher and mentor to kids who have been in rough home lives and even in trouble with the law to make something of themselves is far more important than driving the price of oil up and lining my pockets with cash. I do both - work with disabilities and teach downtrodden kids.
Mark, YOU look in the mirror before you accuse others of living “kook” lives.
John McCain was IN this film, interviewed without any kind of duress and speaking his mind.
Is John McCain a kook, Mark??
Is Eisenhower a kook, mark?
Ask yourselves these questions and stop being blind to things you do not wish to see (and then reacting with disrepect and animosity with any who challenge you.) Stick your head in the sand.
But SOMEBODY needs to change this country for the better, to return to the ideals of our Fathers.
One of three people might have a chance to do that as President this year, to fix Bush’s mistakes. But not one of those candidates is “Senator” Mark Noonan, is it?
14. Mark Noonan | March 6th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Robert,
Ike and McCain aren’t kooks - but people who believe that there is a baleful conspiracy out there, or that we’re fighting for oil profits, are kooks…since you appear to believe that, Q.E.D.
Good on you, by the way, for teaching kids…but if you are really a completely caring person, shouldn’t you be out doing something for someone less fortunate rather than commenting on a blog?
We are the problem, Robert; no paranoid conspiracies…you and me; we don’t do enough.
15. Mark Noonan | March 6th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Freedom,
I wish I could say I was surprised…and, thing is, there is so much good which can really be said, but there is no sense at all in ignoring the evil which needs to be exposed….just stupid, stupid, stupid…
16. Freedom1 | March 6th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Mark,
The MSM = lies, lies, and more lies.
17. Dennis | March 6th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Mark, you can only speak for yourself. You say “Look in the mirror” because YOU have been one of the enablers of the present situation in Iraq, and by extension, the larger Middle East.
As for me, I screamed and hollered all the way into this war. I opposed it unequivocally, and feel not the slightest bit of responsibility for the untenable situation the United States finds itself in right now. Whatever any of us do for those less fortunate than ourselves is not for you to judge, or call inadequate. Once again, please speak for yourself only.
You say “The past is the past - it can’t be changed.”
This is true, and whatever the next president does must and will be tempered by objective reality. The United States owes a debt to the Iraqi people, but that debt lies first and foremost on the shoulders of the Bush admin and their enablers.
The rest of us, before being held accountable to THEIR debt, would like THEM held accountable for THEIR error. Only then can we proceed with some semblance of justice. This could be addressed by a war crimes tribunal. Only by such a remedy might our nation be absolved of its complicity in the crimes against humanity committed by the Bush administration.
Only after such a remedy would we have the credibility and moral authority to do what needs to be done in Iraq, and in the larger war on terror. Without such a remedy, anything we do will only be putting a band-aid on a gaping cancer.
Mark, the pang of your guilt comes through loudly and clearly in your words. It is reflected in how quickly you delete posts that frame issues and moral questions for which you have no logical answer. You take facile refuge in calling critics of the Bush administration “enemy propagandists” - but the issues and questions remain unresolved.
I do not think either an Obama or a Clinton presidency will find the courage to do the right thing in this regard. Certainly McCain will not. We will continue to flounder in a moral swamp for the foreseeable future, while our enemies, who are even worse, will grow stronger feeding on America’s greatest moral weakness: the terrible inability to say, “We were wrong.”
18. Mark Noonan | March 6th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Dennis,
We already had one trip down kookery lane tonight, we didn’t need a second, even longer trip there.
Look, I know what you believe - you’re as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. There’s really no need for you to comment because like all lefties, you’re views on every conceivable subject are two-dimensional, sophomoric and disconnected from reality…all I have to do to figure out what you’ll say is pretend that I don’t know the facts, and then fram everything in a Hate Bush frame of reference.
I feel sorry for you, but you are also greatly cluttering up this blog, which has serious work to do over the next 8 months…I’m asking you: Just go away. There are plenty of blogs out there which will welcome your views and think them other than asinine. Go there - I pray you’ll eventually wake up from your sorry, sad little nightmare world…but until then, we’ve no use for you here.
19. Robert | March 6th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Mark, Eisenhower was the man who STARTED the term “Military-Industrial complex.” All you have to do is watch his farewell address to the American people to see that. It is historical FACT. He warned that if our government focused too much on military spending and expansion we would be in real trouble. This is FACT, mark. Watch the address he gave and you will see.
If Eisenhower saw this as a problem, how is that a kook conspiracy theory. This was a President saying this from his own mouth, a good President.
In the film there is actual video, REAL video of a press conference, of Bush REALLY saying in his own voice, with his own words, that there was no real link between 9/11 and Iraq.
Mark, Bush SAID IT IN HIS OWN WORDS!!! He admitted that fact for all the world to hear.
How are these “kook” conspiracy theories?
They are FACT, at least in as much as the people actually said these things and there are actual documents to back it up, both written and on video. Again, how can Eisenhower fake his speech, and how can Bush fake a press conference. They said these things.
Also, I am commenting on this blog TO do something. To share knowledge and opinions with others. To try to help others, even if we disagree, by putting another point of view out there. I agree that it is OUR fault that the country is in bad shape. But that is also because the American people do not do enough about putting bad and selfish, as well as imcompetent leaders in charge. We need to keep a constant vigil for corruption and do what we can to help stop putting inept people into positions of power.
This vigil crosses ALL party lines, Mark. It is not the fault of only the left. Liberals are not the ONLY ones who cause issue, Mark. get that through your head.
And if you are so compassionate, maybe you should stop criticizing people who post on your blog, like you did to some other commenters after me, and actually LISTEN to what other people have to say. Maybe even try to understand someone else’s point of view. You do not have to agree, you just have to LISTEN. And you cannot dismiss them as kooks because they may have a Liberal viewpoint. Liberalism is NOT the bane of all existence, it is just another way of looking at the world. It has its good and bad, but it is NOT the evil you claim it to be.
20. Dennis | March 6th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Mark - and what is your “serious work”? To get another Republican elected, who will continue down the path the Bush adminstration has set America upon?
You want me to go away, and perhaps I will. I have other things to do with my time than talk with people who have closed minds. You believe people like me “Hate Bush” when actually I see him as a tragic figure. He is a small man like many other small men I meet every day - only George W. had the misfortune to be born into a family of influence, and by this accident of fate landed in a position of power wildly beyond his depth and ability to manage. I do not hate him, I pity him.
As a Christian I believe, evidently more than you do, in morality, righteousness and accountability. Yes, accountability. It is a conservative ideal, in case you need reminding. Others here have spoken well about the conservatism of men like Eisenhower, who would agree with me on my larger points. You have taken great and unjustifiable liberties with the concept of conservatism - enough intelligent people here see that, that I need not belabor the point.
You go ahead and rally your extremist buddies. By so doing you take upon yourself accountability for all they support and represent. You alone must answer to your Maker for the manner in which you have used your influence in the world. I’m just here to remind you of that. Delete as you will, but just remember: the truth remains intact.
21. plainjane | March 6th, 2008 at 7:47 am
When they were alone, do you think McCain asked him who came up with that little black baby campaign in South Carolina during the 2000 election?
I was hoping for a big hug and a kiss a la Senator Lieberman, with plenty of pictures.
Reminder to Repugs no party has retained the Presidency when the country is in a recession; Democrat or Republican. And with gasoline prices continuing to rise, that $600 incentive will not be used for any frills to get us out of this recession, it “ALSO” will just go to big oil to pay off gasoline and heating oil credit debt.
22. Christian Wright | March 6th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Bush supporting McCain.
Bush does know that his endorsement is poison, right? He cannot be that deep into the bubble.
While everybody is wasting ink on Obama and Rezko, I found an old article about McCain’s ties to organized crime. We need more ink about that.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E5DD1430F932A15751C0A9669C8B63
23. Tractatus | March 6th, 2008 at 11:15 am
sorry, but I don’t buy paranoid theories.
you’re [sic] views on every conceivable subject are two-dimensional, sophomoric and disconnected from reality
Nice to see you still have that gift for projection that makes you so funny, Noonan. You don’t buy conspiracy theories…except for the ones that are the foundation of your world view (tell us again how “the left” is a giant conspiracy–started with the French Revolution–to eradicate god, for starters). And your views on every conceivable subject? Two-dimensional, sophomoric, utterly disconnected from reality as everything must serve your comic-book world of good vs. evil and everything must be hammered into your narrative of “conservative always equals good, liberal always equals bad.” And considering you cannot get even the most basic facts about Iraq right (it’s pretty pathetic how you continue to cling to the “we found WMDs!” argument), “disconnected from reality” is really soft-pedaling your situation. “Strictly enforced ignorance” is closer to the mark.
But I guess it’s easier for you to pretend that no, it’s everybody else who has your characteristics, not you. Just like it’s easier for you to claim everybody who points out facts that you don’t like is a “kook leftist” whose only agenda is to “hate Bush.” Sure beats thinking and dealing with that messy old reality, eh Noonan?
24. Joe | March 6th, 2008 at 11:32 am
That is funny coming from Mark — sorry, but I don’t buy paranoid theories
This coming from the guy on the “Re-Defeat Christine Gregoire” thread says this (presumably with a straight face)…
Democrats all across America in 2004 tried to steal elections
You want stupid paranoid theories??? Yikes.
25. Robert | March 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Good point Joe.
“Democrats all across America in 2004 tried to steal elections …”
WOW! And THAT is not a paranoid conspiracy theory??????
Mark, GIVE IT UP!!!!!!!
Stop HATING Liberals and OPEN your eyes and your ears.
You say it is Liberals who hate, but look at your words and your actions to every Liberal poster on this site.
It is YOU who are filled with hate, Mark!! YOU!!!
Please try to use some of your “Christian” forgiveness and compassion and be a better man, for your are certainly not a good example of the Christian faith the way you treat Liberals right now. Please, for your own sake Mark, stop hating Liberals……
26. SteaM | March 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“Also, I am commenting on this blog TO do something. To share knowledge and opinions with others. To try to help others, even if we disagree, by putting another point of view out there.”
I agree. I do visit progressive/liberal blogs to keep up with what’s going on in the real world beyond what is covered by the mainstream media. But to comment in those blogs is to join the echo chamber. What good does that do to bring about change? None.
But coming here is more important in that regard. A former Vice President wrote a book last year about a new danger to our democracy. The war on reason and common sense in the public forum. “Forum” not in the sense of a messageboard but “forum” in the general sense of, for example, comments on a blog or a discussion at your local bar or grocery store or barbershop.
This is essential. The citizens of this nation, we have many view points, many perspectives, religions, morals, skills, and highly intelligent people. When a computer processor is able to utilize it’s technology to perform millions of operations at the same time it is able to efficiently and quickly perform actions. If the people in this country put their skills and intelligence and persectives together to solve problems we can do it quickly and efficiently. Intelligent debate is key to us running a smart government based in reality. Ignorant bad policies should never be allowed to actually become official business. They should be debated until we have the best plan based on the facts.
George Bush and the GOP and even the Democrats have been and are being played by groups with a lot of money. Their influence is causing problems, serious problems with how we run our country.
If there’s a 30% of the population who is strictly going to vote for republicans no matter what the facts are just because they cannot stand democrats and refuse to acknowledge those issues that exist in their own party … and somehow this keeps the rest of us from actually getting work done in congress and the other branches of government… then it is up to me, and your, and every citizen in this country to make sure that the 30% who are enabling and supporting leaders who want to enact harmful policies are aware of their mistakes and are not impeding progress.
That’s why we are here instead of on dailyKos (which I hardly ever go to, I prefer thinkprogress, crooksandliars, americablog, rawstory, or huffingtonpost).
27. bagni | March 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
markbushcain:
as usual…..the spacejunkies were confused by that whole endorsement affair yesterday
bush seemed to poo all over mccain in public
maybe it’s our problem
but perceptuallly bush appeared to be giving backhanded compliments and endorsements
the green ones might vote for mccain
but his lapdog act yesterday was lame
sad
28. Sunny | March 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Mark, having Bush’s endorsement is not a plus for Indedendents and Blue Dog Democrats. Those of us who plan to vote for McCain will be put off if McCain gets Bush too involved in his campaign. I think that McCain went to the WH for Bush’s endorsement to help bring the part together, but he needs to leave it there. Bush will only hurt McCain’s chances of getting elected.
29. Sunny | March 6th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Mark, you are wrong and Dennis is right. You chose to stay in the dark. No wonder you are in the 25 % of Americans who support the Bush administration and the Iraqi War.
30. FmrMarine | March 6th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
WHO HOO
GO - W
We are with YOU, Mr President.
THANKS for keeping us safe from the islamic hell the klintoon disaster left you with.
31. Eric T | March 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
With the topic being unite the Party.
My friends and I were talking about McCain. Most of them like Ron Paul or Huckabee. My friend Andy made a good point he said.
” It is not that I’m voting for McCain, but I’m voting against Hillary and Obama.”
I thought that summed it up well because the democrats fielded some of the worst extremist liberal candidates they could have possibly put up there. With No real experience and a message that is Just hot air and fluff. I think McCain will do well.
32. Ricorun | March 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
SteaM: Intelligent debate is key to us running a smart government based in reality.
Given that sentiment, one would assume you would take it a bit more to heart — or more properly to your head, and maybe not let your heart show so much. I have to say that I’ve gotten to the point where I mostly skip over your comments, because they are so driven by ideology and so thin on substance. So much so, in fact, that I often wonder whether you’re an alter-ego of someone with exactly the opposite point of view who has invented you as a troll to show how mindless lefties are. Although having said that I sometimes get the same impression (although in reverse) that the same is true of, say, js.
33. Brian G. | March 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Oh yay! President Bush! THAT will make me vote for McCain!
34. Tony Ghost | March 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
It just goes to show what a mealy weak person John McCain is.
Bush’s electoral slime machine in 2004 used race baiting, push polling, and whisper campaigns to smear McCain.
Yet, today, McCain hugs him dearly.
Hey, bygone be bygones, but, to attack one’s child, one’s mental state, please gimmie a break.
I laugh at McCain.
Flip flopper extraordinare.
35. SteaM | March 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Ricorun,
Sorry to dissapoint but I am really the “crazy liberal” that I present myself as.
No apologies here. I like it, come on over to the dark side.
Seriously, my comments are thin on substance? … maybe, but you also might be completely missing my point. Thick in ideology? Ok, I can deal with that. So what?
All I am saying is that people with opposing views in this country must work together and comprimise some. We have to be careful not to become so divided that we can never accomplish this.
Do you want substance from me? Ok, on what subject? McCain’s pro-war stance versus the American public’s opinions in this matter?
36. Mark Noonan | March 7th, 2008 at 1:59 am
SteaM,
Well, lets put it this way - if the American people are, as the left claims, now anti-war, then there is no chance McCain will win…and after the votes are counted in November and if we’re looking at President-elect Obama or Hillary, then you’ll actually have an argument in favor of your position because unlike the 2006 contest, “stay or go” in Iraq is actually an issue on the table (back in 2006 is was a far more nebulous “change of direction”).
On the other hand, if McCain wins, then you’ll find that your whole worldview is screwed up -what you thought was Bush defying public opinion was actually Bush carrying out the wishes of the American people…what then? Will you then admit you were wrong and perhaps rethink your opposition to the war?
The lesson here: you are basing your views on a few public opinion polls, a very weak reed…especially given that President Bush became the first man to win a majority of the Presidential vote since 1988 running on a very explicit platform of staying in Iraq no matter how long it took or how hard it was…votes mean something, polls mean nothing.
37. Defibulator | March 7th, 2008 at 3:09 am
Given that sentiment, one would assume you would take it a bit more to heart ? or more properly to your head, and maybe not let your heart show so much. I have to say that I?ve gotten to the point where I mostly skip over your comments, because they are so driven by ideology and so thin on substance. So much so, in fact, that I often wonder whether you?re an alter-ego of someone with exactly the opposite point of view who has invented you as a troll to show how mindless lefties are. Although having said that I sometimes get the same impression (although in reverse) that the same is true of, say, js
Get over yourself. Yeesh, how do you find a hat big enough.
Spare me.
38. SteaM | March 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Defibulator,
After reading what Rico had to say I decided to do a little thinking, some reevaluation to make sure I wasn’t just blowing smoke out my ars.
The lack of substance, to me, means more that I am pointing fingers at Bush as a horrible disaster of a president while not giving any solutions or giving detailed specifics.
However, for me, this is just a lack of education in some areas. History, writing, political science, environmental science, climatology. I would love to know more about it.
Although, after doing some political science reading and seeing people’s discussions of different aspects of the political spectrum (left, right, center), liberalism, neoliberalism, conservatism, reagon-nomics, and ideology.
I started with Ideology and just went from there.
It’s interesting stuff. Is ideology a bad thing?
Either way, if and when I actually have more time to make my case and add in some substance I’ll try to do that. I guess just pointing out that Bush is a bad president, the people think the country is going in the wrong direction as well as they think the president is not doing a good job, and McCain is embracing the president and therefore seemingly adopting his policies then I would not think that would go over well with the people.
Except those who are close-minded and have followed Bush, or not even paid any attention and just figured the federal government is trustworthy so why spend time on oversight or fact-checking what they say and what claims they make about laws and the constitution. These are the folks I am concerned about.
In 2004 Bush did win a majority. 50.7% to 48.3%. Here’s my theory. That is less than 2.5 percent difference. In 2005 Rush Limbaugh had around 13.5 million listeners. In 2004 Bill Orielly was at around 3.5 million viewers on his television show only.
There are others, like Sean Hannity, who I’m sure has millions of listeners and millions of viewers.
These guys spend 2, 4, 6, 8 hours on the air or on tv every day.
These guys are on FoxNews which is 24 hours. Their shows reran every day.
Sometimes what they say is mere harmless opinion and enternaining banter for truck drivers who just want to listen to the radio. Or for people who love to listen to something to get enraged or to get that heart rate going, like listening to Savage.
But for the most part all of the content of these shows, and I would love to post examples later, is hateful towards the entire ideology of liberal left politics and even progressive as well. They defend conservatives and republicans, nothing wrong with that and I applaud their energy. However, in doing so, they tend to defend the indefensible. This is natural in politics on either side, however, with millions and millions of people constantly being bombarded with misinformation and spin from one side of the political spectrum… like for instance, Cheney said this many times in the Bush vs Kerry election of 2004:
And this gets picked up, enhanced, amplified at 5,000% and broadcast (rather irrationally, angrily, and hatefully) to people daily through conservative radio and television. Pundits, consultants, and party strategists, scream it at the people all day and night long via the public broadcast airwaves.
This is why I am telling you guys to really think about who you vote for. And Mark has admitted that “liberal is wrong” and “liberalism is evil” and that “liberalism is a lie”, and so on and so forth. Well, gee, Mark, where does this come from? Liberals want peace not war… this is wrong? That’s just one example of what you are claiming. It’s actually very offensive as well. I take it personal when someone tells me that just because it’s very ignorant and also very closeminded.
I dated a girl once who told me her parents hated John Kerry so much that they boycotted Heinz ketchup because his wife was a Heinz.
What the hell? It’s just ketchup people!
A man yelled at me one night as I was buying beer at the gas station. He was the clerk working the night shift while listening to cosnervative talk radio in the background. I said “hi, how are you”… he shook his head and started angily into this rant about how Nancy Pilocy was try to get the troops killed by passing a bill to make some event in Turkey’s history officially considred as a genocide. Of course, after some debate in the congress, this never passed. Duh. No need to yell at a guy who is buying gas. THAT IS THE WAR ON REASON. LOGIC INFECTED WITH EMOTION.
39. Ricorun | March 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
SteaM: THAT IS THE WAR ON REASON. LOGIC INFECTED WITH EMOTION.
I would say there’s a great deal of truth to that. Once recognized, what sense does it make to try to battle emotion with emotion? You might do it in the name of reason, but that doesn’t make it reasonable. You will never change anyone’s mind just by telling them they’re wrong, or hurling epithets at them. How does it make you feel when someone does it to you? My guess is it further entrenches your opinion that they’re the idiots, not you. The point is, you can’t just tell people they’re wrong, you have to demonstrate it to them — logically — to the extent you can. And to the extent you can’t, then maybe they’re not such idiots. Well, sometimes anyway.
At any rate, IF you really want to foster intelligent debate you have to be dedicated to it, meaning that you have to stay on-topic and try not to be dissuaded by the name-calling and other absudities. And I say “IF” because there are a lot of people here who really aren’t interested in intelligent debate. There’s nothing wrong with that, I suppose. But it certainly is something you have to recognize too. And it’s not something you can make them choose. You can choose for yourself though.
40. SteaM | March 7th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Rico, that’s fine.
But when are you going to talk about the issues rather than my communication skills.
I’m not running for president.
I made some good points. Any comments on those or just the way I presented them?
41. Ricorun | March 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Okay SteaM, I’ll tell you what… Let me see if I can give you short responses to the questions you ask on this thread. If you want more in-depth analysis, contact me here: richardlambert80@netzero.com. If you really are interested in intelligent debate you might be glad you did.
1. If there’s a 30% of the population who is strictly going to vote for republicans no matter what the facts are just because they cannot stand democrats and refuse to acknowledge those issues that exist in their own party …
Forgive me if I only reiterated part of your statement. I mean to refer to all of it. And I think the important thing to point out about it is that you said it immediately after saying, “George Bush and the GOP and even the Democrats have been and are being played by groups with a lot of money. Their influence is causing problems, serious problems with how we run our country.” That presents something of a logical disconnect, wouldn’t you say? On the one hand you begin by saying that both Reps and Dems are at fault (correctly, IMO, I might add) for “being played by groups with a lot of money”. And then you proceed to blame only the Reps. What’s up with that? That just doesn’t pass the logical sniff test.
2. In #35 you say, “All I am saying is that people with opposing views in this country must work together and comprimise some. We have to be careful not to become so divided that we can never accomplish this.” It’s a wonderful sentiment. But how do you translate that into reality? If one party holds all the levers of power, too often it’s translated as, “do what we want on the stuff important to us and once in a while we’ll throw you a bone.” Color my cynical. You have every right, because I am. There are occasional exceptions, but over the course of my lifetime the thing that has worked best, and with any sort of consistency, is a divided government where one party dominates in one branch and the other the other. And I would say the primary reason is pretty simple — both parties are being played by groups with a lot of money. There’s considerable overlap, but fortunately they do differ a bit.
It seems I’ve gotten to the end of the comments you’ve offered on this thread, except for one final question: “when are you going to talk about the issues rather than my communication skills.” I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I try to only address issues. I haven’t been commenting much recently, and there are several reasons for that: (1) I’ve been busy; (2) most of the topics recently have been more about opinions and personalities than issues, and I care about issues first and foremost; (3) I really do prefer intelligent discourse, and that’s been hard to come by here. Most threads are usually hijacked by fire-breathers, and that just doesn’t interest me. I guess you could say it’s just too passive-aggressive for my tastes. And I can’t see where anyone who engages on that level comes out the better for it.
Anyway, it appears I made you think. I’m glad for that. I kinda sensed you were ready. Contact me if you care to. And if anyone else feels so inclined, feel free.
42. Ricorun | March 7th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
uh… I didn’t tell you how to contact me. Sorry about that. It is this: richardlambert80@netzero.com
43. SteaM | March 7th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
You didn’t make me think. I did that on my own. Gladly. Willfully.
Try making Mark and Matt think.
They and their doppleganger buddies are the ones who are fighting against progress.
44. SteaM | March 7th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Rico…you ego thinks that you and I having an email pow-wow is going to improve the national public forum in terms of having an informed debate?
You and I talking would be like the echo chamber.
45. Ricorun | March 7th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
SteaM: You didn’t make me think. I did that on my own. Gladly. Willfully.
My bad. Apparently I mistook your comment (#43): “After reading what Rico had to say I decided to do a little thinking, some reevaluation to make sure I wasn’t just blowing smoke out my ars.” Apparently the chronology was just a coincidence. But let me ask you: if you were me, how would you interpret what you said?
In comment 26 you mentioned, “I do visit progressive/liberal blogs to keep up with what’s going on in the real world beyond what is covered by the mainstream media. But to comment in those blogs is to join the echo chamber. What good does that do to bring about change?”
Then in #44 you say, “You and I talking would be like the echo chamber.”
Maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but it doesn’t to me. Rather, it makes me wonder who, exactly, you intend to engage in the intelligent debate you claim to so desire — you know, the one with people in this country with many view points, many perspectives, religions, morals, skills, and highly intelligent people who wish to put their skills and intelligence and persectives together to solve problems quickly and efficiently.
Am I missing something? If so, what?
46. Ricorun | March 7th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Me: Am I missing something? If so, what?
On second thought, don’t bother answering that question. I think I answered it on my own.
47. SteaM | March 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I decided to take what you said and do some research.
Others here would benefit from the same kind of self-motivation. If you were the inspiration for that then congrats. I still took the initiative to do it and take that extra step.
But anyways, Rico, I actually didn’t mean that talking to you over email would be pointless. I just think you and I probably do agree on most things except maybe the way I go about trying to make my point.
However, if you were to run into me at a bar sometime I’d love to chat. Email is so … tedious. All that typing and sending and stuff… haha.
But, how did we get to this point? I seem to remember trying to make a bigger point and having someone rip into me for my sometimes wobbly communication skills. Which I appreciate that very much, Rico. So where were we?