OK, OK, I don't know if David's even seen it, but I'm sure he'd approve. :-D
Yes, I've seen it and yes, I approve.
That's a great spot. Wish the DNC would put together something like that and run it on tv.
Considering John McCain's campaign in 2000 and what the Bush team did and said about him, his embrace of Bush since then makes McCain perhaps the biggest political whore in recent American history.John McCain should be running for "Fluffer-in-Chief," as much time as he spends fellating and stroking the Bush administration.
I would love to see the "flip-flop" chant from the Republican 2004 convention directed towards McCain at the DNC convention. He went from someone that could have been Kerry's running mate to the next George W. Bush in 4 years.
Too bad there's no chant for "shameless politically pandering opportunistic asshole."At one point, I had some respect for John McCain. But the more I see of him the more apparent it becomes that his persona as political maverick is really just a narrative concocted to distance himself from his role in the Keating scandal.He never stopped being that senator; he just put on Barry Goldwater's mask and passed himself off as the maverick from Arizona.He's the same crooked politician he's always been.
John K: Worst President in US history? According to who, Matthews? Typical liberal speak. When the economy was booming we had Gephardt whining that it was the worst economy in 70 years. Of course the President statement doesn't consider Buchanon or Hayes and a few others. So the comment is totally ludicrous. Isn't that the name of the band that endorses Hussein Obama and would like to see McCain in a wheel chair?
worst president ever.according to most people with a working brain.
It's a poll result statistic. JohnK do even pay attention?Maybe you just have maternal issues? I bet you're still living with your mom. Maybe even sharing the same bed?
John K: The worst President ever comment is so liberal. It shows what I have been saying. Liberals have no sense of history and view it strictly from a point of view of how it looks when they wake up. Pay attention in History class next time and focus...focus.
There you go again, John...Because, you see, you daft twit, it is actually the consensus of many historians that George W. Bush is, in their opinion, the worst president in our history.In 2004, George Mason University conducted an informal survey of 415 historians, of which 338 rated W a failure and only 77 rated him a success(that's roughly 81% to 18%).In 2008, George Mason University conducted another survey and you know what? An even greater percentage of the historians surveyed regarded W's presidency as a failure - 98% to 2%. Among those, 61% said he was the worst president in history.So, no, John, it is not a liberal view; it is a very broad opinion most frequently evinced by the nation's own historians.Maybe try not conflating your opinion with fact next time?
John K: So now historians are judging events from a historical point of view while they are still occurring? Those folks are not historians. If you are judging events within the last 50 years and rendering a verdict then there is no analysis, just an opinion. And I would say that Jimmah Carter is the worst President ever. Pay attention in history class next time.
I'm nominating this for one of the dumbest things I've ever read:"If you are judging events within the last 50 years and rendering a verdict then there is no analysis, just an opinion"So, I guess we can't start talking about how successful the Vietnam War was in a few more years, because then it will be analysis, whereas now it's just opinion.Amazing...so, what you're saying, John, is that these historians, who are professional historians and were surveyed by George Mason University and culled from across the political spectrum, aren't actually historians? You're one arrogant person.It's just not the case that much time needs to pass to render judgement on some event or some political leader or offer anaylsis. By you're logic John we can't even talk about Nixon until sometime around 2025 and yet numerous historians, as well as political anaylysts, were quite willing to label him as one of the most corrupt presidents in American history when he resigned.They pretty much knew after the Invasion of Normandy, John, whether it was a success or not; no one waited until June 1994 to analyze it.Frankly, I'm not certain what slim thread of hope your hanging for the history books to redeem W. There is data NOW to analyze his the effects of his economic policies. There is data NOW to analyze the effects of his foreign policy. And so on.The only function time serves is with regards to comparative history - how did the Iraq War and the American policy of pre-emption encourage Russia to assume a similar stance with regards to Georgia(for example); how did the Treaty of Versaille lead to World War II.To think that historical anaylsis is set in stone, as you seem to think, is just plain dumb and certainly indicates you have no place admonishing others to "pay attention in history class." However, rendering historical judgement with regards to the effectiveness of a president is not something American history has ever waited 50 years before stating whether so and so was a good president or among the worst.It's simply not the case.It is the case that, once again, because you cannot keep your prideful tongue in check, that we have reached another situation where you would do well to take your own advice.
Herbert Hoover was a good president! History will prove this to be the case.John K. assures me this is so.
Post a Comment