On Hardball, Russert claimed McCain has "maverick brand" with public, without noting his colleagues' role in promoting it
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Tim Russert said of Sen. John McCain: "[T]he perception right now of McCain is someone who's experienced, someone who they see not of the Republican brand or the Bush brand, but of the maverick brand." Russert did not acknowledge the media's role in promoting that "brand," much less the role of Hardball host Chris Matthews -- who, the next day on Today, called McCain "a maverick. People think of him as a maverick."
On the April 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said of Sen. John McCain: "[T]he perception right now of McCain is someone who's experienced, someone who they see not of the Republican brand or the Bush brand, but of the maverick brand. Now, I think a lot of that may change, Chris, come a general election, in a fall election, hotly competitive." While asserting that the "perception right now" is that McCain is "of the maverick brand," Russert did not in any way acknowledge the media's role in promoting that "brand," much less the role of his colleague, Hardball host Chris Matthews. Indeed, the next day on Today, Matthews said: "Well, you only get one reputation in life, and he's got a good one. He's a military man who served his country, sacrificed for his country, carries the scars of battle. And also, he's a maverick. People think of him as a maverick."
Media Matters for America has documented Matthews and others in the broadcast and print media using the label "maverick" when discussing McCain, despite the various instances in which McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment, a lifetime rating of 83 by the American Conservative Union, and his recent rightward shift on high-profile issues such as immigration and taxes.
From the April 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Now let's take a look at some of the match-up polls potentially going down in November, Tim. Let's take a look at the Associated Press poll. It shows that McCain is tied 45-45 with Senator Obama, who had a 10-point lead as recently as February over McCain, and McCain basically within the margin of error with Senator Clinton at 48-45.
And now look at this fascinating one. These are showing how close these people are, between Democrat and Republican, no matter which Democrat it is. Take a look at this one. This is a new Marist poll that just came out this afternoon. You tipped me off to this yesterday, that it was coming. Let's take a -- this is absolutely fascinating. If you put Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, on the ticket with John McCain on the Republican side, it defeats either Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton by 49-to-46 or 49-to-44 in New York state, the home of Hillary Clinton, the home of American liberalism.
RUSSERT: That's incredible. I mean, if that were to be the case, it's a landslide for the Republicans. Here's the great irony --
MATTHEWS: Well, they would carry 45 states, if they carried New York.
RUSSERT: Minimum. Minimum. Here's the great irony of all this. If you ask Americans 10 issues, from Iraq, the economy, global warming, health care, they prefer the Democratic position. If you ask, this fall, do you want the Democrat or Republican, generic question, Democrat by 12 points. But when you compare McCain-Obama, McCain-Clinton, it equals out.
Why? Because the perception right now of McCain is someone who's experienced, someone who they see not of the Republican brand or the Bush brand, but of the maverick brand. Now, I think a lot of that may change, Chris, come a general election, in a fall election, hotly competitive. Because why?
You're right to identify Iraq as an issue that has reemerged dramatically this week in this campaign, and we're going to have big differences on a big issue with big candidates. If it's McCain-Obama, McCain-Clinton, it's going be, "We're going to stay in Iraq. We're going to finish the job. We're not getting out. We're going to see this thing through" -- versus -- "We're starting to take the troops home immediately. We're going to do it in a way that will hopefully not create more chaos in Iraq. But we can no longer afford to do this. We have to spend the money at home." The American people are going to decide whether or not to stop this war.
From the April 11 edition of NBC's Today:
MATT LAUER (co-host): And real quickly -- latest polls nationally, if we move to November, has a McCain-Obama matchup -- dead heat -- 45-45. A McCain-Clinton matchup -- 45-48 with Senator Clinton leading. I ask this question only because in this year of everybody calling this "the change election"--
MATTHEWS: Right.
LAUER: Boy, you have to look and John McCain is polling pretty strongly. Here's a guy who's been in Washington for decades. He supports the surge. And against a couple of "change" candidates, I guess you could argue that he's doing pretty well.
MATTHEWS: Well, you only get one reputation in life, and he's got a good one. He's a military man who served his country, sacrificed for his country, carries the scars of battle. And also, he's a maverick. People think of him as a maverick. Now, even though he supports the war, people sense that he has -- he has a lot of inner strength. And even though they're against the war, they trust the man's battle courage. He's been in it. He's been fighting for his country --
LAUER: Right.
MATTHEWS: -- all these years. It's going to be a great campaign, I think, between the personalities, the people and the policies. I think the American people are going to have to make up their mind. It's a tough one.
LAUER: Chris Matthews joining us this morning.
POV,
Since this is a delicate issue for you as well, how would you define a Maverick? Does John McCain fit that definition?
POV:
We'll assume you're just naive or ignorant, and explain ONCE AGAIN what it is that MMFA does.
MMFA documents MEDIA MISINFORMATION which is produced with a blatant rightwing bias ... which is MOST media these days.
Media talking heads often directly lie, say things that are provable as untrue, and endlessly express their "opinions" as if they are facts. MMFA documents as much of this as comes to their attention.
PART of what MMFA does is to track rightwing talking points, crafted narratives, and direct rightwing propaganda. These "conventional wisdoms" (MYTHS) are used daily as the beginning PREMISE for all coverage of any particular subject; the PREMISE is to be accepted as unchallengably TRUE>
In this instance, it is the "selling" of John McCain to the public, by means of inventing and creating an IMAGE and PERSONA which the Media feels is appealing to the public. All the while, of course, they are excusing away, rationalizing, or simply ignoring inconvenient character traits and behaviors of McCain that do not fit their invented NARRATIVE for McCain.
All together, this is a tremendous example of MISINFORMATION delivered by the Media, because the Public is expected to form their opinion of McCain based on what they hear on these talk shows, and the talk shows are not presenting honest, balanced, or objective information.
The public might describe McCain as a "maverick", because that is the description most used by the media. If it were a Democrat, the same traits, characteristics, and actions that lead to McCain being called a "maverick", would instead be spun as Democrats having no core values, being disloyal, being "all over the place" in their policies, being a flip-flopper, or going against the will of their constituents. All of these have BAD connotations, while "maverick" is ascribed to McCain for the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR.
So you see, it's a clear double standard, and the Media is MISINFORMING the Public by acting as McCain's PR firm, promoting him while attacking his opponents.
People who believe this kind of media coverage are MISINFORMED, and it is done purposefully BY the corporate-owned media. GET IT NOW??
Tex
What I get now is that you need to start taking your meds. No where in your long, rambling answer did you ever come close to making a point, and we are all more stupid for having read it. I will go reaaaalllll slow for you.
1. You never came close to establishing how calling McCain a "maverick" is miss info.
2. Someone who hosts a show is allowed to have an opinion. You far left wing nuts are all for free speech, as long as you agree with it.
3. According to your rant, the media never says something positive about a liberal. That is insane.
4. I dont know how you dems do it.....but conseratives do not believe that the "Public is expected to form their opinion of McCain based on what they hear on these talk shows, and the talk shows are not presenting honest, balanced, or objective information." If that is the public that you hang around with, you need a better educated group of friends.
5. It is not as you say, "a clear double standard", and it was not a "tremendous example of MISINFORMATION delivered by the Media" as you claim. It was, is, and will always be a nickname.
If this is the best you can do, it is pretty sad. It is not a lie, it is a nickname. You simply cant bear the fact that anyone could say something positive about a conserative. It must be miss-info, it is not fair, it has to be a lie. We are all watching history live here. The dems, led by nuts like you, are going to hand the white house to McCain, in an election the dems should never had to worry about, let alone lose.
Yes he did...in detail...which is why is was so "long".
2. Someone who hosts a show is allowed to have an opinion. You far left wing nuts are all for free speech, as long as you agree with it.
This is a strawman argument. MMFA saying something is misinformation is not calling for the host to be silenced by force.
3. According to your rant, the media never says something positive about a liberal. That is insane.
Another strawman. You should probably go look up this fallacy so you dont keep repeating it. It's a nasty way of trying to get out of seeing someone's point.
4. I dont know how you dems do it.....but conseratives do not believe that the "Public is expected to form their opinion of McCain based on what they hear on these talk shows, and the talk shows are not presenting honest, balanced, or objective information." If that is the public that you hang around with, you need a better educated group of friends.
TV simply reaches more people...and a wider variety of people. There is less and less news and if you want to watch news and go to a news station then a majority of the time you will see these talking heads and opinion shows. Even straight "news" from some of these outlets is just another opinion show...just formatted differently.
5. It is not as you say, "a clear double standard", and it was not a "tremendous example of MISINFORMATION delivered by the Media" as you claim. It was, is, and will always be a nickname.
Hehe...yeah...I am getting the feeling you know exactly what he meant...you know exactly why this is here.
If this is the best you can do, it is pretty sad. It is not a lie, it is a nickname.
No one said it was a "lie"...he went to all that trouble to go into detail and you just want to simplify it again. If I were him I would never bother responding to you again...you are not being genuine.
Wow. Tex looks like a rocket scientist next you .
1. His post is long, it must be right. I don’t even know how to respond to that one.
2. Anytime the libs disagree with an argument, the poster is a troll, or the argument is a straw man argument. You are good at applying labels, but you provide NOTHING to back it up.
3. See Above.
4. TV reaches a lot of people. That was a profound argument you made there. And because it reaches a lot of people, they must be to stupid to think for themselves.
5. Again, another statement you make with NOTHING to back up your point.
I have been in many serious discussions here, and I have been attacked as well. You response is one of the worst I have seen. Your logic comes down to this. Tex gave you a long response, and tv reaches a lot of people, so he must be right. Any thing you say against me is a straw man, and you know exactly what you are doing.
It is sad how blind some can be. MMFA says the sky is falling, so it must be so.
1. His post is long, it must be right. I don’t even know how to respond to that one.
You like to rephrase what people say into something more comfortable to argue against. You said Tex's post was long and rammbling and made no point. But, he had made a point and I thought a good one. The fact that you think it's "long" has nothing to do with its validity and I never implied as much.
2. Anytime the libs disagree with an argument, the poster is a troll, or the argument is a straw man argument. You are good at applying labels, but you provide NOTHING to back it up.
Do you know the definition of "strawman argument"? It means something specific. I can breakdown how and why you are using this fallacy but really, you should be able to do that yourself. So, it doesn't require something to "back it up". You did it and I just pointed at it.
3. See Above.
4. TV reaches a lot of people. That was a profound argument you made there. And because it reaches a lot of people, they must be to stupid to think for themselves.
Again, its in the extremes of every point that you find comfort. Points no is making or trying to make. Like I said before you aren't being genuine. You can't honestly try to make that what I was saying...so you're stupid or pretending. Either way, arguing with a child about something he doesn't understand and arguing with a cultist who's mind is not receptive...both are fruitless endeavors.
Tex gave you a long response, and tv reaches a lot of people, so he must be right. Any thing you say against me is a straw man, and you know exactly what you are doing.
Thanks for the summation of your complete lack of reading comprehension. Now go look up some argument fallacies and demonstrate you understand them by not repeating your cheap techniques again and again.
OK, POV, since others have taken the time to explain this to you (not that it penetrated, but can't blame Tex) and pointed out the fallacies and errors in your posts, I'm going to take a more positive approach, and point out the one bit of (inadvertent) truth and insight from your comment;
'...conseratives do not believe that the "Public is expected to form their opinion of McCain based on what they hear on these talk shows..." '
Exactly,and that's the goal of propaganda and advertising- the target audience is not supposed to "believe", or even be aware, that they're being spoon-fed opinions. The people who whip out their credit cards to buy worthless crap from late night infomercials dont "believe" that they're being persuaded to think they need that crap, they just think they suddenly became aware that they need a new magic oven mitt.
If you're trying to argue that conservatives are too smart to be suckered into the media's myths, you're proven wrong on a regular basis by calls to talk radio and posts right here on this site. There are some pretty sharp conservatives who post here, but there are also quite a few who show up spouting things they consider hard facts, but which are actually easily debunked, or just have absolutely no basis in reality.
Sometimes you don't even realize when you've told the truth, eh?
Good Morning Col.
At least your response was interesting. Still very troubling, but interesting. I seem to recall a conference call during the Kerry campaign, in which a reporter claimed that the media choice of stories should bring at least a 4 point swing over to Kerry. It was also stated by the reporter that the media should in fact embrace and fulfill this role. Sure, it happens on both sides. But to cry and moan everytime the word maverick is used is just plain silly.
Neither MMFA, nor any poster here, can determine exactly what a maverick is, or how you get to be one. No one here can define how you lose the statues of Maverick. Neither HC or BO have cast a single vote to stop funding for the war, yet we are supposed to believe that they will stop it because the media keeps telling me that? NO......you listen to the person, you read, you watch coverage, and you make a decision. Anyone who is so easily influenced as you suggest is beyond hope. They may even be a maverick voter.
I seem to recall a conference call during the Kerry campaign, in which a reporter claimed that the media choice of stories should bring at least a 4 point swing over to Kerry. It was also stated by the reporter that the media should in fact embrace and fulfill this role.
"I seem to recall" is not evidence. What reporter? When? Got a transcript?
I seem to recall a reporter calling Kerry a doody-head. This proves that the media is biased in favor of the right wing.
POV,
For someone who professes not to care about this topic, you certainly have spent some time on it. I'll ask you my two-second questions again:
What is your definition of a Maverick? How does McCain fit that definition?
The media has put forth a portrait of him as a centrist. What has John McCain done (and stayed with) in the past 8 years that reflect this?
What if the media portrayed Obama or Clinton as centrists and bi-partisans and people who bucked the Democratic party line to work with both parties when that wasn't true.
"The media has put forth a portrait of him as a centrist. What has John McCain done (and stayed with) in the past 8 years that reflect this?"
I Thought the media portrayed him as a maverick. Now you are saying they portray him as a centrist. You must have lost your left wing talking points.
Could you please just answer my question? What is your definition of a maverick? Does McCain fit it or not when it comes to his politics/voting patterns?
Am I being unreasonable?
FRIED:
The online dictionary defines "MAVERICK" as "a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates," and "one that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter."
What this means is that the media is laboring mightily to portray John McCain as NOT A REPUBLICAN.
To the extent this is a desirable trait in the 2008 elections, there are already two far superior "mavericks" to the Republican platform. They are the Democrats.
Ah, but McCain is not really a "maverick" at all, is he? The "core" rightwingers are being told McCain will simply CONTINUE GW Bush's policies, on the war, on the economy, on everything important. So applying that "maverick" label is a specific lie to try to fool a specific audience: Those who would not elect a Republican under any circumstances, because they see the suffering, harm, and damage Republicans under GW Bush have brought to this nation. To THOSE people, the Media has a little lie they want them to buy: McCain is NOT a Republican ... not really. Don't be afraid, he's a MAVERICK!
It is propaganda at its height, and ALL our Media are participating.
"At least your response was interesting. Still very troubling, but interesting..."
That's good ! "Troubling" is one of the first stages of enlightenment.You may be on the right track, POV.
POINT OF VIEW has questions:
POV: "What I get now is that you need to start taking your meds.
RESPONSE: Ad hominem, trite, namecalling. Unuseful.
POV: "No where in your long, rambling answer did you ever come close to making a point, and we are all more stupid for having read it."
RESPONSE: Impossible for you to become "more stupid".
POV: "I will go reaaaalllll slow for you."
RESPONSE: The court will stipulate that you ARE "real slow".
POV: "1. You never came close to establishing how calling McCain a "maverick" is miss info."
RESPONSE: It's misinformation because it is not TRUE ... it is manufactured packaging, pure spin, narrative writing, and can only be expressed as one person's "OPINION", yet it is presented as FACT. Further, this preferred labeling of McCain is for behavior that is identical to Democratic candidates, but they are excoriated, while McCain is given a nickname which polls well with focus groups. If you think McCain a "maverick", you are misinformed. I said all this, apparently you cannot read with comprehension.
POV: "2. Someone who hosts a show is allowed to have an opinion. You far left wing nuts are all for free speech, as long as you agree with it."
RESPONSE: It's not a free speech issue, it's a TRUTH issue, and a BALANCE issue. You are being misinformed by rightwing pundits, and there is no one on these shows as the host is misinforming you to set the record straight. It is a virtual propaganda monopoly. And apparently, you LIKE it that way.
POV: "3. According to your rant, the media never says something positive about a liberal. That is insane."
RESPONSE: Never say never. The ratios in various venues have been counted, but it's something along the lines of 10 McCain praises for every one Hillary praise, and 10 Hillary criticisms for every one McCain criticism. It's not absolute, but it is wildly biased.
POV: "4. I dont know how you dems do it.....but conseratives do not believe that the "Public is expected to form their opinion of McCain based on what they hear on these talk shows, and the talk shows are not presenting honest, balanced, or objective information." If that is the public that you hang around with, you need a better educated group of friends."
RESPONSE: You form an insult from nothing. WHY IS THE MEDIA perpetuating this McCain as Maverick framing, unless they wish for it to be generally accepted as TRUE? They do it on purpose, they do it in coordination, and they repeat it in order to bestow on McCain a brand identity ... like the name on Tom Cruise's helmet in "Top Gun".
POV: "5. It is not as you say, "a clear double standard", and it was not a "tremendous example of MISINFORMATION delivered by the Media" as you claim. It was, is, and will always be a nickname."
RESPONSE: Tens of billions of dollars are spent every year on advertising. You're saying advertising does not work? That brand identity is not intended to influence the public? That identifying an insurance company with a lizard is not a successful marketing plan? I understand your need to downplay the impact of biased "NEWS" media, but to successfully do so, you have to convince people that advertising does not work. This you cannot do.
POV: "If this is the best you can do, it is pretty sad."
RESPONSE: Third graders cannot comprehend college-level concepts. I don't expect YOU to be able to properly evaluate the argument here. And yes, that's sad.
POV: "It is not a lie, it is a nickname."
RESPONSE: It is propaganda, and it is untrue.
POV: "You simply cant bear the fact that anyone could say something positive about a conserative."
POV: McCain is no more a "conservative" than GW Bush. And I have no problem hearing positive things about Republicans, as long as they are factual and objective. Assigning a "nickname" to a favored candidate is NEITHER.
POV: "It must be miss-info, it is not fair, it has to be a lie. We are all watching history live here. The dems, led by nuts like you, are going to hand the white house to McCain, in an election the dems should never had to worry about, let alone lose."
POV: At least you recognize that the GOP should, by all that is sacred, lose everything this election. The will; I do not have the power to hand McCain the White House. Only a rightwing majority Supreme Court can do that.
Col.
"your not the boss of me!"
LMAO.
Thanks I needed that.
I got sucked into a black hole on HuffPo and finally managed to escape.
This thread is delightful.
Do not, I repeat do not go to the Mayhill Fowler thread You may disappear and never be heard from again. Over 6000 comments and still going hot and heavy. Its mass hysteria, a mob mentality gone awry.
well, that goes without saying I guess.
I think i'm babbling.
Thanks for the laugh.
good night.
Yeah Russert should have said: Because the perception right now of McCain is someone who's experienced, someone who they see not of the Republican brand or the Bush brand, but of the maverick brand. Of course we in the media love repeating that he's a Maverick.
And Matthews should have said: And also, he's a maverick. People think of him as a maverick. But of course they probably only think of him that way because we in the media keep repeating it.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone in the media to admit they've helped promote the idea that McCain is a Maverick. Nor would I lose any sleep over it. It's there. It's not going away. And I really doubt it's going to make or break McCain's chances to win the general election.
This is one of the things that Cheney got right, proposing cuts to bloated projects...which McCain opposed. In fact, Kerry voted for the cuts and was attacked by the fading Zell Miller at the Republican Convention for "voting against the military". He was totally unaware that Dick Cheney proposed these cuts.
McCain loves to see himself as pro-military...and votes for more military hardware, but against veteran's benefits.
Is anyone wondering why he's called a maverick?
I think the public is aware that he has a temper and is maybe a little forgetful on details. Beyond that what do they know of him?
Eweston,
You got me wondering how, why & when the term Maverick began in regards to McCain. So I did a search. Came up with the following [you might want to read the entire article] this is just a snippit:
The first time anyone referred to him as a "maverick" in the press appears to be a February 1989 States News Service story, which quoted Dan Casey, then-executive director of the American Conservative Union, saying about McCain, "He is a good conservative but somewhat of a maverick."There was no explanation of what made him a maverick, other than the fact that the group had given him a rating of merely 80 out of 100. Other such descriptions are few and far between. Another story from 1989, in Newsday, described him as a Republican expected to "break ranks" on Dick Cheney's proposed budget cuts to the F-14D aircraft program. But apart from these faint glimmers, there was little indication of the McCain image that would eventually form in the press.
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/1254
Thanx Jeter, interesting.
Sounds like a romantic feelgood in large constructed by the media.
An old shipyard philospher enjoined two basic rules to live by at work. Chose your own nickname , and have your pants up before you flush. John appears to have used that first rule. His use of the second is of no concern to any except for who does his laundry.
Fast Eddy.
Who is the white haired stranger there,
Maverick is the name.
Mad as a crazed Republican,
flippin' and a floppin'
it's really old McCain.
(apologise to James Garner)
mmfa uses the ACU rating as credible proof that McCain is not a maverick but instead is a lock step conservative republican.
Examining the other side of that "credible" rating system finds Obama with a lifetime rating of 8 and Clinton 9.
That should free up some of the mmfa staff for more important work than incessantly trying to deflate and run away from the liberal brand the media puts on Obama and Clinton.
People seem to be having problems with defining Maverick, and I think that I can help out in this regard. The term "Maverick" is a remarkably accurate description of McCain.
The terms describes someone, like McCain, who is an independent thinker, a war hero, a straight-talker, deep thinker, honest, tough yet willing to compromise when need be, reflective, and courageous.
That should help clear up why McCain's called Maverick. Commentators should be commended for their honesty when they appropriately acknowledge that McCain is a Maverick. Essentially, to refer to him otherwise is liberal misinformation
McCain has come out in opposition to the current administration several times but if he was a real maverick he wouldn’t reverse his stand the next day like he has so often.
Check Jeter's link Steve. His image as a maverick don't wash, but makes a hellofa public club to use on people who might think he's naked.
If you ever got close to a real maverick, you'd wonder why you thought it was such a good name. Stinky, grooming, whats grooming? Ill tempered, feral, homicidal, always looking for an opportunity to put some teeth or hoof into any relationship. In proper setting and from a safe distence as romantic as all get out. As a president, someone to always be cleaning up after, dangerous when everything isn't just tickybo. Nothing you want to see try to adlib a new situation.
Besides Ming is a much better icon of going your own way.
Goooo Ming!!
WHY IS McCAIN CALLED A "MAVERICK"?
Because he's a "loner". He goes his own way.
In politics, UNFAVORED people who do this are called inconsistent, disloyal, traitors to their party, "all over the place", that they have no "moral compass" or "core beliefs", that they do not have PRINCIPLES, and that they are elitists who disregard the will of their constituents.
Because he changes his opinions/voting stances.
In politics, UNFAVORED people who do this are called "flip-floppers", RINOS, indecisive, they "will do ANYTHING to win", they are lacking in leadership quality, are fickle, undependable, and perhaps overly influenced by the LATEST campaign contribution. They are called "unfit" for the office of President, which calls for reliable consistency.
Ah, but because McCain is FAVORED by the Media, they need a rhetorical trick in order to avoid attaching all these negative evaluations to McCain. Calling him a "MAVERICK" (the "lovable" adjective is understood), solves this problem.
And so it begins.
I've been waiting for the mancrush on Obama to wane and the return to the McCain love affair to reignite. I didn't think it would happen till after the nomination though.People are going to lose their minds when they finally get it.
Its all commodity, co-opt, commodify (is that a word) package, brand, sell. Its not just goods we are constantly either tempted with or force fed to want. buy buy buy .
Its ideas, movements, hos to think of something, who to identify with... here is your guy, vote for him, one size fits all... until we tell you OOPS,vote for this other one, we had a recall on the previous model.
We're being sold a "tough primary election." We are sold "maverick" "unifying" "polarizing" on and on.
The GE will come, the media will flip flop and go back to their true love. Obama supporters who were claiming that their was no media bias, they were totally fair in their coverage, Obama wasn't being treated differently, Clinton was whining,the media had miraculously become above reproach will be howling. Actually they have started already with the PA. comments.
I kind of feel sorry for them. I mean not in a condescending way. They are really convinced of the unerring infallibility of Barack and that their is a divine writ and all who stand in his way are evil and thwarting the common good.
OK, maybe a little sarcastic, but I do feel sorry for them. Its hard to crash like that. I like Obama fine. I had supported him till, well, till I couldn't anymore. I'm sure he will be able to do a good job. Unfortunately when hero worship starts when humanity is glimpsed the fall from grace is brutal and the love turns to hate in equal proportions.
I must get to sleep, forgive my babbling.
You have all been delightful.
Seriously. This was a fun thread.
;-)
Guy-crush on McCain much, Timmy? Conflating him with Tom Cruise in Top-Gun? Something about the mouth-watering, lip-smacking way Russert gets when he talks about Johnny-Boy seems unwholesome.
True - McCain does own the Maverick(TM) brand.
However, Obama just got the rights to the Elite(TM) brand with an option on Liberal Snob(TM)
Now we just have to get those poor dumb boobs in the small cities who cling to their guns and religion to vote for MY CANDIDATE.
It's going to be a great race - GO OBAMA!!!
NOTANOTHERCONSERVATIVE is a Concern Troll.
He is a rightwinger, and has chosen the tired technique of pretending to be "one of us" Liberals, as if that gives him some "credibility" while he tut-tuts about rightwing talking points.
The sad part is, this rightwing troll, if he's old enough, should have a record of how he did when Bill Clinton was president. He should KNOW, as all America knows, that Clinton's terms in office featured America doing very, very well. Relative peace, stature in the world to be able to make a real difference in the advance of our national interests, precision military might where it, too, made a difference without unnecessarily risking American soldier's lives. Great economy, balanced budget, a surplus, and over 60% favorable rating from the American People.
Ah, but the rightwing is busy ringing its hands at the prospect of Hillary or Barack gaining the White House. Oh my God, it will be a DISASTER, they think. All will be lost. Our economy will go south, spending out of control, terrible foreign policy ... uh, but that's what BUSH has caused! It's clear in every indication of national condition, we are MUCH WORSE OFF in EVERY WAY as a result of GOP rule. And our memory tells us that Clinton was GOOD for America.
So that sad part is, despite being pigheadedly AGAINST Dems and Libs and anything left of Atilla the Hun, Rightwingers will prosper along with everyone else once Democrats are in charge. They get to bitch and complain and whine and agonize, but in the end, America is better off and THEY are better off. History proves it. Our national condition today proves it.
So JUSTANOTHERRIGHTWINGER fakes support for Obama, and he very well may get his wish. It'll be either him or Hillary ... because McCain is a virtual Bush clone, and America knows it cannot survive much more of Bush's policies which further enrich the already very wealthy and screws hell out of the rest of us, and gets our kids killed by the thousands for no reason.