wait, Moore was at the RNC? that's proof the Republicans are librhuls. surely Bush had the power to ban him from the premises! or at least that's what TJ would have us believe.
To prevent another September 11th from happening right? I am not sure I know the answer to this, but why were we attacked on Sept. 11th? Did the US do somethng wrong oversees prior to that? Or was it because we have freedom and they hate that we have it? To me, it seems going on the offensive would hamper terrorists objective to attack us on our soil. All I know is, I dont want to ever see that again.
Why doesn't anyone ever call the Republicans out for their huge hypocrisy when it comes to Hollywood? President Bush and others like to argue that celebrities are somehow not as American (not the "heart and soul of America") as the rest of us, yet they someone who's made their living in Hollywood, Ron Silver, is a speaker at the RNC. He, in turn, criticizes Hollywood. And people buy that ****.
JB, it's not that simple as "they" hate our "freedom." Most of "them" WANT freedom. This is what happens when puppet dictators are put in place for our own purposes. So, the "did the US do something wrong" goes way back in (M. East) history. And this is only part of the issue. This list goes on...the difference between Iraqi nationalist, internal civil-war fighters, moderates, US acquiescence towards *everything* that Israel does (just or unjust), stigmatism towards muslims in general (just or unjust), manipulation of oil, food embargo, and the ole "freedom figher one day" "terrorist another." So, it's not as simple as lets go get "them!" The term "them" is not as simple as Bush would want you to think. This is why it's dangerous (and futile) of him to broad-brush everything in Cowboy black-and-white terms. It causes the hatred that he's trying to "stomp out." By the way, the past "mistakes" may have seemed pragmatic, albeit cold-blooded, at the time. But when "humans beings" are involved we always seem to pay for it later.
It's not hypocrisy, the B-Listers and has-beens who show up at Republican events like him and Bo Derek are more like Celebrity Mole participants or former bottom left squares than your typical "Hollywood Elite".
from "news"max: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/23/102151.shtml One of the celebs named in the Details article has responded to the outing incident via her publicist and has done so in an entertaining and quasi-historical manner. The star is Mandy Moore, and the New York Post has reported the response as, “Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican.” I’m half expecting to wake up tomorrow morning to a news flash that has Mandy asking the prying reporters of Details magazine this question: “Have you no decency?” the reality: (no online article found but I read the issue at B&N) Mandy was on the list compiled by the GOP NOT Details in the article Details called her publicist to ask her about being on the list. Her publicist was shocked at the news of her client being on such a list and said she would call back in ten minutes and when she did that's when she said "we have to get Mandy off that list" and "Mandy is not a Republican". Details then says the GOP refused to return their calls about how and why Mandy appeared on the list. Go read it for yourself. Pretty sad that Karl Rove and Co. have to resort to making up celebrity supporters now and that a reputable news "source" has to twist the events of what really happened. Oh also on the list in the article: Mike Deluca (producer) Nick Lachey, Jessica Simpson, Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze jr and Shannen Doherty
it says here that he voted against the 87 billion. It's Roll# 400 (for 2003) And apparently Kerry admitted voting against it, but you say he voted for it? Now I'm just lost.
The immoral line was me misusing a word on purpose the way that ROXRAN does with hedonistic. I was just having some fun. I was also commenting on the tone of the whole convention not McCain's speech in particular. Rudy, the police guy, every person they interviewed tried to use the ol' flip flopper label, and attack. McCain for the most part merely said why it was important to attack IRaq, and have a president who was willing to attack countries like that.
Very effective speeches by Giuliani and McCain last night (effective towards the base, not independents or moderates). But is there any doubt that the RNC is not going to exploit 911 anymore? That is all they talked about last night. Never mind that both McCain and Giuliani have acknowledged disagreements with the party over abortion, same-sex unions, gun control and stem-cell research. Both McCain and Giuliani disagree with Bush on these issues. But that doesn’t matter! The most important issue is the WOT. That is the issue that the RNC is going to ride to November. Good luck to them.
This entire convention is all about the Republicans wrapping themselves in 9/11 and running on a platform of fear.
in general, i mccain looked like he wanted to get done pretty quickly. maybe he didn't want to be "combative", and certainly the substance of the speech was excellent. the delivery, however, was rushed, and he often shushed the crowd when theyw old've gone on applauding (ie the moore moment). he roused himself at the end, but then rushed off stage. a weird performance from someone who (perhaps) hopes to be his party's standard bearer in 2008. Rudy G was wonderful. a much more folksy speaking style, and there were moments where i thought he'd gotten so far off track i didn't think he could find his way back, but he was impassioned, and the audience loved it. the "two americas" jab was very effective, as was the dig at european terror appeasement. drawing the line from churchill to reagan to bush was perhaps overreaching, but he made it work. all in all a great speech. 2008, top of the second, score Rudy 1, McCain 0.
I agree basso. McCain looked like a man who didn't want to be there. Didn't want to be giving that speech. It was kind of sad to see really. He knows he's sold his soul and there was no turning back for him. Talk about taking one for the team.
He voted for an amendment that would have paid for the $87 billion by rolling back tax cuts. The amendment didn't pass and, like a good fiscal conservative, Kerry voted against it because the only other alternative was increasing the deficit to pay for the world. Is this bizarro world or is JFK the fiscal conservative while the GOP spends like drunken sailors?
i don't want to ascribe motivations to why he looked uncomfortable, just that the performance was oddly muted, particularly for a keynote. again, the words were great- read the transcript- the delivery was just off.
If Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with either al Qaeda or 9/11, then this argument might hold water. However, we were in Afghanistan, where the planning for 9/11 took place and the government supported and harbored al Qaeda and then we LEFT before mopping up the Taliban OR getting bin Laden. We WERE "on the offensive," Saddam was completely contained, and we were taking care of business until Bush was taken in by a hostile government and manipulated into attacking a country that was not a threat. I don't either and that is why I am voting for Kerry. Bush's "plan" has cost American lives (that did not need to be sacrificed), INCREASED terrorism, and swelled the ranks (to say nothing of the morale) of al Qaeda. We can win the WOT, but we will have to do it intelligently and with worldwide support, two things that this administration has not infused into the WOT.
i'm leary of getting into one of these long drawn out all caps digressions with you, but i've got to correct one central misconception, that you've repeated ad nauseum for months now. saddam was not "completely contained." the sanctions were breaking down. old europe was losing interest. the oil for palaces program would've soon metastized in the oil for wmd program. as both mccain and giuliani made a point of saying last night, whether saddam possessed WMD at the time of invasion is almost beside the point. he had them in the past, used them, and soon would have aquired them again. would you bet the security of this country on assurances from france, germany, and the "p*****s" at the UN, the same charming folks who gave us the genocide in rwanda and the "difficulties" in darfur?
Exploiting 9/11? That's harsh. It happened and W responded correctly. I am glad they are not glossing over the event. People quickly forget how everything was then. I liked how they consistently went back to reminding their base that Democrats are not the enemy. They said that spirited debate and arguments are healthy and good.
Did you read what I posted? He voted for the Democratic version of the appropriations bill, which, unlike the Republican version -- offered a means to pay for it. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155
