Embarassed for them
John Rich, half of the country music duo Big & Rich, wrote a song for John McCain, though one glance at its lyrics reveals that it sounds more like a Joan Collins novel than a campaign song.
He stayed strong, stayed extra long til they let all the other boys out. Now we've got a real man with an American plan, we're going to put him in the big White House," the song says. Its refrain: "We're all just raising McCain."
Maybe they should get a room.
He stayed strong, stayed extra long til they let all the other boys out. Now we've got a real man with an American plan, we're going to put him in the big White House," the song says. Its refrain: "We're all just raising McCain."
Maybe they should get a room.
posted by Jmac at 8:12 AM
26 Comments:
WTF? I thought "It's Raining McCain" was a perfectly fine campaign song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s
One semi-celebrity endorses a Republican, and the Left has a cow. It's as though they're entitled to all the support of every member of the "artistic" community. One guy breaks ranks, and there's a problem.
For the record, McCain did stay strong and stay longer than he might have. Hell, he spent more time in Hanoi that He Whose Middle Name Shall Not Be Spoken has spent in elective office.
I would imagine even He would grant Mac the occasional celebrity endorsement. After all, He has Ludicris--not to mention Britney and Paris--in His corner.
After all, He has Ludicris--not to mention Britney and Paris--in His corner.
You know, the ironic thing is that the Hiltons gave money to McCain and Britney Spears is a Republican, and McCain thinks they're Obama's problem. It's either flat-out stupidity or the sheer inability to use cognitive thought.
As for the song itself, it's crappy from a musical perspective and not so much because of John Rich's ideological leanings. I mean, James Woods is a Republican, but the difference is he's actually done some good artistic work.
Dude, anonymous--nobody on the left is jealous of John McCain's Big and Rich endorsement, k?
The issue at hand is that it's kind of a pathetic celebrity endorsement (Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy!), we're all starting to feel sort of sorry for the John McCain spectacle, and there are some really dirty sounding (and given McCain's age, probably totally inaccurate) lyrics in the song.
Feel sorry for McCain all you want (by the way, something he's probably never done) but today's Gallup tracking shows 'em tied, even after two weeks of knee-pad coverage on His mideast campaign rally.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Look, I know my pity doesn't translate as a lock for Obama, but McCain is just so completely out-of-touch seeming, and...old and confused and ornery, like Mr. Wilson on Dennis the Menace as one columnist recently observed. I have no idea if he's always been like this, but it's hard to watch.
Paris Hilton? No one's mentioned her name in a year, and she's who he pulls out of the hat to name as a celebrity on par with Barack Obama? It's just so odd, and apparently, getting him nowhere, even with Republicans. If his poll numbers are rising, it has much less to do with McCain the man and more to do with Obama, the color and the name. I didn't think it was going to be such an issue, but ever since West Virginia I've heard so much nastiness--it's very disheartening. There are many good reasons to dislike Obama if you're an independent or a conservative, but I fear those good reasons aren't what are holding his poll numbers back.
If his poll numbers are rising, it has much less to do with McCain the man and more to do with Obama, the color and the name...
Didn't take long to play the Vote For Obama Or You're A Racist card.
Really: was there ever any other card in the deck? Throw out your average white guy and his two weeks of experience in the Senate, and he'd have never made it out of the snows of Iowa. Geraldine Ferraro was 100 percent right about this empty suit.
I can't tell if you're willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying or just not good with reading comprehension. Trust me, I have always been pretty Pollyanna about improving racial climate in our country, but cold hard facts do tend to bring me down to earth sometimes.
McCain is a bad candidate, he has pandered away the appeal he held 8 years ago AND he can't rally the base. Obama is a much more charismatic candidate, and he's running in a year that should, by all historical standards, be a LOCK for the Dems. And yet they are polling very close.
I don't think a majority of McCain voters are voting on race whatsoever. But there is a chunk of folks who are--and don't tell me you haven't heard them!
This albeit small portion of racists and xenophobes is making a difference in a race that should not be this close. And PLEASE don't act like everyone is talking about this--NO ONE is talking about this.
Now, you're right about one thing--for some, Obama's ethnicity and race do make him more appealing, but why on earth shouldn't it? We've had a neverending stream of the same factory-issued candidates that has almost nothing in common with a huge portion of average Americans. What's wrong with being a little more enthusiastic about a guy who's breaking barriers and looks like you? Don't get me started on Geraldine Ferraro--Hillary had a lot of the same thing going on with women. Coming from her, it was a highly hypocritical statement.
Yeap, absolutely may God forbid anyone recognizing CAPT McCain's heroism and sacrifices made for OUR freedom - they should rather be out drooling and fawning over OUR GREAT AND BELOVED MESSIAH, Barack (bows head profusely and kisses the floor) Hussein-Obama, praise be to His Magnificent and Glorious Name. PRAISE THE BARACK, ALLELUIA!!
Don't be an idiot. It is sad that you are unable to come up with your own ways to mock Obama and have to follow the party-line even when it comes to insults.
No one worships Obama, but people do seem to find an intelligent, charismatic politician far more charming than an increasingly senile Senator who thinks all the worlds problems will be solved in 4 years if only he is elected president.
Seriously though, feel free to call out Obama on some positions you don't approve of, but to insult him for being admired is just stupid.
I am ridiculing those who worship Hussein-Obama. And make no mistake, it IS worship. Have you not seen the way he is treated as if he is some kind of deity or Messiah?
And I see nothing wrong with being frightened of a charismatic leader who bursts onto the scene from out of nowhere, rises to the top of a party overnight, who is tearfully worshipped by thousands of shrieking fans everywhere he goes, with his only qualification being that 1) he is not the current ruler, and 2) he gives fantastic speeches. I think that history teaches us to be wary of such people especially when they are candidates for Reichskanzler... oops I mean President.
Yes, because Barack Hussein Obama has done nothing in his entire life while you have made such a name for yourself that you are afraid to attach it to your own opinions.
Which of these have you been? A State Senator, a United States Senator, Chairman of the Harvard Law Review, Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
Obama is very inspirational. But the only people who paint him as a messiah figure are the people behind the stupid ads from the McCain campaign. If McCain were charismatic enough to get any sort of crowd anywhere you'd be using that support to show he is a man of the people.
Seriously, don't hate on Obama, talk up your man McCain! Bring some substance to the table.
Ah ok so now we have an ad hominem attack, I don't know why I didn't expect it. Especially since I have now aroused the wrath of the Cult of Obama by criticizing His Most Holy Supreme Eminence, the Messiah!!
"Ohh no mein friends, do not be criticizing Der Fuhrer! Show vhy von Hindenburg should be eleckted, but ist und bad bad mistake to criticize Der Fuhrer, or to claim zat he ist evil, ja!"
I must just add one little thing, ja.
You ask Which of these have you been? A State Senator, a United States Senator, Chairman of the Harvard Law Review, Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
Well which of the following has Hussein-Obama been?
A) Hillary Clinton's rival for the Democratic Nomination
B) A good speaker
C) A hero who served his country in the Navy, rising to the rank of Captain, and being tortured as a Prisoner of War while Lt. John Kerry was over here spreading lies about him and the other heroes?
I'll give you a hint... C.
And being a POW makes you qualified to be President?
While I admire John McCain and the way he served this country as a POW, it in no way qualifies him to be president. It is a nice little checkmark on his presidential resume - Military Service. But his actual service besides being a POW is quite spotty and not worth writing home about.
Seriously though, tell us how McCain is awesome. Tout his legislature that you love. Tell us how his experience makes him worthy of being president. Spend your time fawning over the man who you want to be President, not mocking people about Obama being a messiah. Remember, you are the only person here who claims he is one. No one who is planning to vote for Obama is doing so because they think he is a messiah. Yet because the GOP has started up this method of attacking Obama, you are preaching it to the masses like it is the word of god. Seems like someone around here has messiah issues and it ain't the people who like Obama.
Bonus points for a John Kerry reference ... though, then again, since typically most GOP talking points revolve around fiction and the past so I suppose it's not too terribly original in the grand scheme of things.
Ahh so we finally have an admission of how much respect the far left has for the military - serving your country is a "nice check mark" but being a state Senator apparently qualifies one to have shrines and statues built to His Most Glorious and All-Sacred Beneficence. (genfulects).
Hey Johnny, why don't you remove the "leans center to left politically" lie from your page and instead start telling the truth, "I am a paid partisan hack for the left."
If you'll excuse me I must now do my daily prayers. "Hail Barry, full of speeches, Code Pink is with thee. Blessed art thou..."
Chuck, I know you've got a ridiculously absurd lawsuit pending right now, but if you'd like to grow a pair and actually tack your name onto your posts we'd all enjoy making fun of you again.
Big boys make real arguments ... though this would probably explain why you're a crappy lawyer.
So I assume you voted for Max Cleland over Saxby Chambliss when you had the chance? And you certainly voted for Kerry over Bush, right?
Jonathan is a little paranoid huh? Actually no, not a little.
Hail Barry, full of speeches! Code Pink is with thee!
Jonathan is a little paranoid huh? Actually no, not a little.
Well, seeing how that's not actually what 'paranoid' means, I'm not sure how I can be that. A more accurate description would have been ...
'Johnathan is a little amazed at Chuck/anonymous's unfathomable idiocy. Actually, no, not a little.'
Aha more name calling - the true sign of someone who has no legitimate argument. Why dont you run back to your little playground with Chuck and see who can make up the funniest name or insult for the other! While the adults get on with important matters.
Well, I can't tell if the latest anonymous ("aha more name calling") is the same one(s) posting in this topic, but to say that insulting or name-calling is the sign of a failure to produce an argument while name-calling or insinuating someone is a child is inconsistent. Just as it is inconsistent to say that someone cannot produce an "ad hominem" attack against the speaker all the while doing just that with Obama.
Nevertheless, anyone who has a problem with the idea that large masses of people can be swayed by the most skilful of demagogues has, at heart, a problem with democracy itself. It's a complaint that's been around since Plato wrote the Gorgias, and historically it's been the aristocrats and the elite who don't think very highly of the populace being able to make the right decisions that are good for themselves. What makes our time so fascinating is that, now, it's those who espouse a populist position against elitism who use these elitists' arguments against populist politicians.
This is no wonder, since, as best as we can tell, democracy is a dead issue in the United States. With democracy having been taken for granted for so long, any time any significant movement to invigorate the civil responsibilities of the people to participate in their government occurs, it is seen as either socialist, bureacracy-loving, or a mob mentality that leads us to tyranny (essentially what the comparison to Hitler is meant to warn us of, that and Obama being the Antichrist). But you cannot have democracy without the people, and the people only become such when they find that they are duty bound to not just their ideals but also to one another.
And this is the other fascinating thing about the anti-populist sentiments of today's populists. We have this tremendous ability to get people motivated to vote, to spread a message across the country, to focus this message into themes that independent people then create their own riffs off, to collect and pool resources across the social classes--but they never understand this as having the same formal structure as what unifies "the left" or whatever is marked with that sign. In other words, they never realize that this is the course of democracy itself in our era. Perhaps this is because, ultimately, for the populist conservative this is all betrayed by those who use that political capital for deeper anti-populist aims, so they never quite make the connection...
What this person sees, instead, is something fearful whenever the people stand behind someone willingly. What they would rather we all go through is a "Support the Troops" politics, where you support our leader whether you want to or not. So, it comes down to how a person thinks the idea of democracy: as either the expression of the will of the people or the expression of the will of the One.
Aha more name calling - the true sign of someone who has no legitimate argument.
Wow. Sheer inability to process logical arguments. Truly staggering.
What 'legitimate argument' have you offered here? All I've seen are unfunny and immature mischaracterizations of perceptions of Obama that have been refuted by myself and others here. We haven't had anything resembling an actual discussion over ideas or policy here.
No, instead we have a comical original post that poked fun, in a good-natured way, about a pretty lousy song - musically - written about McCain. The response you've offered has been 'unfair, celebrities love Obama, especially ones that endorse McCain ... and dude, you guys like totally worship Obama because you're going to vote for him.'
Now, last time I checked, that's not a coherent argument to make. You'd have to offer evidence, build a case and work to persuade the one you're debating. But that's not your intent at all. It's much easier to not put together a rational thought and instead offer childish insults to anyone who dares think differently that you.
You pretend to be the one who is the 'adult' who addresses important matters ... but only pay attention to things like making fun of other people and feigning innocence when someone has the audacity to call you out on it.
You're more content to sit back and make jokes that only you snicker nervously at while huddling in the corner of the room, hoping no one actually hears you lest someone come over and ask you what you're doing.
It's a sign of weakness, no matter how much puffed-up bravado you try to slip into your preposterous posts.
McCain was courageous, enduring beatings and imprisonment so many years ago.
You, however, are not.
Post a Comment
<< Home