NationStates Jolt Archive

I listen to this guy every morning on my way to work. While I disagree with him a lot, I respect hiim because he's got integrity and he's very intelligent and articulate. Unlike Hannity and Rush, this guy is not a Republican hack whi just reads the RNC's talking points in the morning, he's a conservative who calls it like he sees it and has as much criticism for Republican betrayels or conservative values as he does for liberals. He's also not some knee-jerk gay hater or antiabortionist whack job. In anycase, here is the text of his apology for supporting Bush in 2000. He did not support him in 2004.

Audio link. You shoudl listen rather than read because the transcript is incomplete.

http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listing...Heard+On+Radio

By Doug McIntyre

Host, McIntyre in the Morning

Talk Radio 790 KABC



McIntyre@KABC.com



I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. I believe George W. Bush is unarguably the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. A case can be made he’s the worst President, period. I’ve reached the conclusion he’s either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.



After September 11th, I believed President Bush when he said we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored them. I supported the President when he sent our troops into Afghanistan. I supported the war in Iraq because I believed Colin Powell at the UN, and trusted Tony Blair. The President said Iraq was an urgent threat, and after 9-11, the risk seemed too real.



But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th.



The President says the commanders on the ground will make the battlefield decisions, and the war in Iraq won’t be run from Washington. Yet, politics has consistently determined what the troops can and can’t do and any commander who does not go along with the administration is sacked, and in some cases, maligned.



I was wrong about everything associated with Iraq. We’re not in the ”waning days of the insurgency.” We’re about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear-armed Iran in our wake. And Bin Laden is still making tapes. It’s unspeakable. The liberal media didn’t create this reality, bad policy did.



James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding were all failed Presidents but the damage this President has done is historic. His mistakes have global implications, while the other failed Presidents mostly authored domestic embarrassments.



And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let’s look at President Bush’s domestic record. He cut taxes and I like tax cuts. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public’s money. We’re drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren’s credit cards. We traded tax and spend Liberals for borrow and spend Conservatives.



Bush created a giant new entitlement, the prescription drug plan. He lied to his own party to get it passed. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry. So much for smaller government. In fact, virtually every tentacle of government has grown exponentially under Bush. Unless, of course, it was an agency to look after the public interest, the environment or worker’s rights.



His open border policy is a disaster for the wages of working people-- he debases the work ethic, “jobs Americans won’t do!” He doesn’t believe in the sovereign borders of the country he’s sworn to protect. And his devotion to cheap labor for his corporate benefactors, along with his worship of multinational trade deals, makes an utter mockery of homeland security and calls into question his commitment to sovereignty itself.



Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, the war on science, media manipulation, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American’s lifetime.



America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. However, the Republicans run the show and have more to answer for.



With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken it’s almost inevitable it pukes up mediocrities like Al Gore and George W. Bush. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?



Does this make me a waffler? A flip-flopper? I prefer to see it as realism. For those of you who never supported Bush, it’s also fair to accuse me of kicking Bush while he’s down. After all, you were kicking Bush while he was up.



You were right. I was wrong.

Link (http://www.kabc.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/default.asp)

Just because this thread needs a bump, and just to beat the Busheviks to the punch:

Commie Liberal Traitor!! How dare he stab our beloved Dear Leader in the back with that unpatriotic manifesto! Now Al Qaeda will gain strength and numbers because of this tripe and turn the Middle East into an oppressive brown-skinned theocracy!! He's going to be responsible for airplanes raining down on America!!

There. Heh heh.

Like the character assassination of Stalin by Khrushchev, public denunciation is the only way they can rebuild their credibility. I forsee much historical revisionism and self-flagellation in the US in the years to come.

*stunned*

Wow. Good for Doug.

I live in Los Angeles, Doug McIntyre broadcasts here.

I am shocked and pleased that he is making such an open and honest admission to his listening audience, and frankly to the liberals who dislike him. That took guts.

I don't expect anymore conservative talk radio hosts to do this. Frankly, Limbaugh and his ilk have too much invested in the fortunes of the political right. But I can always hope.

Good job, Doug McIntyre...I hope it doesn't cost you your job and listening audience. After all, we need all the voices we can to counter the morass of lies and doublespeak coming out of the White House.

I will make an admission. While I think it is nice that us liberals have some radio shows of our own, the real hammer blows come when a conservative host does what McIntyre did. They have the audience that needs to make the change, while liberal talk radio is preaching to the choir.

Now, imagine what would happen if a guy like Hannity did this, or Bill O"Reilly?

My two favorite parts:

Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, the war on science, media manipulation, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American’s lifetime.


and:

With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken it’s almost inevitable it pukes up mediocrities like Al Gore and George W. Bush. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?

INow, imagine what would happen if a guy like Hannity did this, or Bill O"Reilly?

Limbaugh, Wiener, Coulter and the rest of the shark pack would turn on them for going "soft," or even *gasp* "Liberal." It'd be a feeding frenzy better than National Geographic.

:D

Limbaugh, Wiener, Coulter and the rest of the shark pack would turn on them for going "soft," or even *gasp* "Liberal." It'd be a feeding frenzy better than National Geographic.

:D

I would pay good money to see that.

Limbaugh, Wiener, Coulter and the rest of the shark pack would turn on them for going "soft," or even *gasp* "Liberal." It'd be a feeding frenzy better than National Geographic.

:D
Noe of those people have enough integrity. There are conservatives and liberals and then there's Republican and Democratic hacks. Doug's a conservative, not a party wonk.

Can I get one Bush supporter? Where's Whittier? Where's Corneliu? :(

Can I get one Bush supporter? Where's Whittier? Where's Corneliu? :(

Hiding.

Mr. McIntyre inadvertantly makes a good case for walking away from the two-party system in the US.

It sounds like the US desperately needs more voices in government; ones that aren't part of an apparently corrupt (or incompetent) GOP or a stagnant (or crackpot?) Democratic party.

There are a lot of spaces available - you could grow the Greens or the Libertarians, create a true American left (instead of a pretend-Left), maybe even create a real centerist party that avoids the extremes of both the GOP and the Dems.

The more I read about the current political situation in the US, the more disillusionment I hear.

As an aside - do people elected to Congress or the Senate as Dems or Republicans ever change allegiences? And I don't mean cross the floor to the other party, I mean, would congresspeople and senators angry at their own parties choose to start a new party or join a new one? What would happen if ten congresspersons decided to create a Green caucus inside the House? Is that even possible?

Mr. McIntyre inadvertantly makes a good case for walking away from the two-party system in the US.

It sounds like the US desperately needs more voices in government; ones that aren't part of an apparently corrupt (or incompetent) GOP or a stagnant (or crackpot?) Democratic party.

There are a lot of spaces available - you could grow the Greens or the Libertarians, create a true American left (instead of a pretend-Left), maybe even create a real centerist party that avoids the extremes of both the GOP and the Dems.

The more I read about the current political situation in the US, the more disillusionment I hear.

As an aside - do people elected to Congress or the Senate as Dems or Republicans ever change allegiences? And I don't mean cross the floor to the other party, I mean, would congresspeople and senators angry at their own parties choose to start a new party or join a new one? What would happen if ten congresspersons decided to create a Green caucus inside the House? Is that even possible?
Funny you mention that because during this speech on the radio he actually said just that. I don't know why this stranscript is incomplete, he said a lot more on the show, but I'll post a link to the audio when it's up.

And here it is. The audio from the show this morning. You guys realy should listen. It's only about two minutes long and it's really good.

http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432636&PT=As+Heard+On+Radio

Mr. McIntyre inadvertantly makes a good case for walking away from the two-party system in the US.

It sounds like the US desperately needs more voices in government; ones that aren't part of an apparently corrupt (or incompetent) GOP or a stagnant (or crackpot?) Democratic party.

There are a lot of spaces available - you could grow the Greens or the Libertarians, create a true American left (instead of a pretend-Left), maybe even create a real centerist party that avoids the extremes of both the GOP and the Dems.

The more I read about the current political situation in the US, the more disillusionment I hear.

As an aside - do people elected to Congress or the Senate as Dems or Republicans ever change allegiences? And I don't mean cross the floor to the other party, I mean, would congresspeople and senators angry at their own parties choose to start a new party or join a new one? What would happen if ten congresspersons decided to create a Green caucus inside the House? Is that even possible?

Structural considerations prevent that from happening. It just isn't possible to have a multiple functioning parties in a winner-take-all precinct voting system, and unfortunately a proportional representation amendment is never ever going to make it to the states for a vote.

Look on the bright side: at least it virtually eliminates the possibility than an American Independent Party candidate ever made it in. . .

Well, I just have to say that when he said "He trusted Tony Blair" (ok, maybe not now, but 2001) I just laughed. Why would anyone have trusted him.

Well, I guess someone must have, but I just dont understand why. He was always a public image chasing slimeball.

You guys really need to listen to the audio. It's much more complete. The transcript left out a lot of really good stuff.

Structural considerations prevent that from happening. It just isn't possible to have a multiple functioning parties in a winner-take-all precinct voting system, and unfortunately a proportional representation amendment is never ever going to make it to the states for a vote.

Look on the bright side: at least it virtually eliminates the possibility than an American Independent Party candidate ever made it in. . .Many countries have first-past-the-post electoral systems but still manage to have multiple parties in government. Canada and the UK are examples of that. I admit that a proportional representation system would be better, but it's not impossible to have more than two voices in government without it.

Of course, it may be impossible to get past the tradition of only voting for one or the other - and to get past the temptation to blame third party voters for causing the downfall of another party. Vote splitting can be a problem.

However, you can get new voices in Congress if some of the moderate centerists from both the GOP and the Dems stand up and decide to start a new party or join an existing party en masse. If some congresspeople did this, and showed that they could make a difference, it might go a long way to providing electoral change in the US.

Just a thought; I'm not American. I don't mean to be disrespectful.

Interesting, but all credibility was destroyed when he claimed that Bush was the worst president ever. Plenty of other presidents have gone into other countries and left them a wreck. The number of horribly failed US back coups in central america is huge. You could make a case that the imperialism of the spanish american war under mckinley was horrible for the philippines. Thats only if you want to look at foreign policy blunders. Domestically, Johnson (the impeched one) was much worse than Bush, as was Grant. Bush definitely isnt the worst.

Also, You cant really blame Iran's nuclearization on Bush. Perhaps he could do more to try and prevent it, but the situation is delicate and Bush certainly didnt cause it.

And here it is. The audio from the show this morning. You guys realy should listen. It's only about two minutes long and it's really good.

http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432636&PT=As+Heard+On+Radio

Wow. That is one heck of a rant.

PD is right - the transcript misses a lot.

Interesting, but all credibility was destroyed when he claimed that Bush was the worst president ever. Plenty of other presidents have gone into other countries and left them a wreck. The number of horribly failed US back coups in central america is huge. You could make a case that the imperialism of the spanish american war under mckinley was horrible for the philippines. Thats only if you want to look at foreign policy blunders. Domestically, Johnson (the impeched one) was much worse than Bush, as was Grant. Bush definitely isnt the worst.

Also, You cant really blame Iran's nuclearization on Bush. Perhaps he could do more to try and prevent it, but the situation is delicate and Bush certainly didnt cause it.
He absolutely did cause it. First he called them part of an axis of evil, an honor they shared with a country that he then promptly invaded. Next he proved to them that we can't even handle a war with Iraq, a much less burdensom foe than Iran would be, because of his ineptitude. Do you think Iran woudl be this bold on the world stage if they didn't know there was no way we could handle Iraq and Iran at the same time? He is also responsible for Iran getting nukes for the same reason he is responsible for North Korea getting them. He has this stupid, ideologically rigid view of the world that prevents him from talking to these people. Iran is obvioulsy trying to get nuclear technology and Bush won't sit at the table with them. Instead, he sends Germany, France and teh UK to do it.

His rhetoric and subsequent actions puts Iran in the understandable position of believing that the US might invade them, nukes or no nukes.

His inept handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars emboldens Iran and his squandering of the world's goodwill towards America post 9/11 leaves Iran with the rightful feeling that world opinion has truned against us.

His refusal to engage them directly means that we have no real conduit through which to honestly understand what their intentions are and leaves them in exactly the same state with regards to ours.

Wow. That is one heck of a rant.

PD is right - the transcript misses a lot.
He really is good. His articulation is amazing.

http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listing...Heard+On+Radio

Can I get one Bush supporter? Where's Whittier? Where's Corneliu? :(

Wow. Dan, go out, have some fun. You're calling on WHITTIER and CORNELIU to TALK TO YOU. No, really, you have to do something offline, if you're that desperate for someone to talk to. :D

(I jest) ;)

Listening to this pisses me off more than anything. To me it shows the partisan politics that republicans play. Bush's inadequacies were plain for anyone to see during his second term (hence my and other liberal's shock at his reelection).

However, those inadequacies were conveniently overlooked to promote that proud republican/conservative image. People rallied behind the republican party, endorsed non-issues because they knew the president was not strong in the actual issues.

Now that the president is not the future face of the republican party, now that it is no longer necessary to back the president to maintain a strong party, republicans are scattering. They fucked the country to maintain a strong republican party, conservative face, and now this jerk thinks he can say that he was wrong about things that were plainly obvious two years ago and regain credibility.

I knew he was wrong two years ago, this apology only makes me suspicious of his motives, while not detracting from my belief that he and most Bush supporters are considerable asshats.

EDIT: And the fact that it was something as meaningless as immigration issues that actually turned this guy against Bush only confirms my belief.

Another conservative radio show host stabs Bush in the back because Bush is losing popular support, even among Republicans, and the host wants to increase his listening audience. Nothing special. What better way to get more money than to appeal to liberals and conservatives alike by a well-staged ploy? These people have no loyalty -- they pick the view which earns them the highest amount of money and they flip-flop like dying fish.

Another conservative radio show host stabs Bush in the back because Bush is losing popular support, even among Republicans, and the host wants to increase his listening audience. Nothing special. What better way to get more money than to appeal to liberals and conservatives alike by a well-staged ploy? These people have no loyalty -- they pick the view which earns them the highest amount of money and they flip-flop like dying fish.

There's a difference between Reagan/Rockefeller-ish conservatives and modern Republican "conservatives" that still support Bush. In fact, the Republican party has more internal strife than you think. Although I'm a centrist, I feel like I'm in the same boat as this guy. Saying it's a "staged ploy" to be a conservative/republican against Bush is just immature and judgemental.

Saying it's a "staged ploy" to be a conservative/republican against Bush is just immature and judgemental.

No, it's a "staged ploy" to be a conservative/Republican talk show host against Bush right when he is beginning to lose a lot of his popular appeal. I'm guessing that the guy lauded Bush when he was popular, applauded the use of force in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, etc., but now he's jumping a sinking ship because he wants higher ratings. He'll change his opinion again if Bush's approval rating hits 50.

Another conservative radio show host stabs Bush in the back because Bush is losing popular support, even among Republicans, and the host wants to increase his listening audience. Nothing special. What better way to get more money than to appeal to liberals and conservatives alike by a well-staged ploy? These people have no loyalty -- they pick the view which earns them the highest amount of money and they flip-flop like dying fish.
I agree.

I've been listening to this guy for years. You should actually listen or read the post before you comment. He did not vote for Bush in '04 because he was disgusted with the Iraq war - a war he has never supported.

Good people can and often do disagree. he may split with you on certain issues but you guys sound just as knee jerk as any neocon I ever heard of.

I've been listening to this guy for years. You should actually listen or read the post before you comment. He did not vote for Bush in '04 because he was disgusted with the Iraq war - a war he has never supported.

Good people can and often do disagree. he may split with you on certain issues but you guys sound just as knee jerk as any neocon I ever heard of.
I supported the war in Iraq because I believed Colin Powell at the UN, and trusted Tony Blair. The President said Iraq was an urgent threat, and after 9-11, the risk seemed too real.
Come on, it's not like there were no reasons to oppose the war at the time. This is ridiculous.

Come on, it's not like there were no reasons to oppose the war at the time. This is ridiculous.
Touche but you still sound as ideologically rigid as our president.

No, it's a "staged ploy" to be a conservative/Republican talk show host against Bush right when he is beginning to lose a lot of his popular appeal. I'm guessing that the guy lauded Bush when he was popular, applauded the use of force in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, etc., but now he's jumping a sinking ship because he wants higher ratings. He'll change his opinion again if Bush's approval rating hits 50.
Watch (listen to) The "Savage" Weiner for further reinforcement of above principle.

I supported the war in Iraq because I believed Colin Powell at the UN, and trusted Tony Blair. The President said Iraq was an urgent threat, and after 9-11, the risk seemed too real..
Come on, it's not like there were no reasons to oppose the war at the time. This is ridiculous.
Did you listen to the actual sound Because someone altered the Transcript, adding a little more Bias to it. I'm not naming names though. He gives more reasons than that.

He also mentioned that he regretted it soon after the War on Iraq, and that he didn't vote for Bush in 04. He also didn't say anything about Richard Nixon.

I've been listening to this guy for years. You should actually listen or read the post before you comment. He did not vote for Bush in '04 because he was disgusted with the Iraq war - a war he has never supported.

Good people can and often do disagree. he may split with you on certain issues but you guys sound just as knee jerk as any neocon I ever heard of.

Then why is he apologizing?

Since you have listened to him for four years, would you say that he did not support Bush's cause during the '04 election?

Also, he said he supported the war, he said he didn't vote for Bush because of his immigration policy.

Interesting, but all credibility was destroyed when he claimed that Bush was the worst president ever. Plenty of other presidents have gone into other countries and left them a wreck. The number of horribly failed US back coups in central america is huge. You could make a case that the imperialism of the spanish american war under mckinley was horrible for the philippines. Thats only if you want to look at foreign policy blunders. Domestically, Johnson (the impeched one) was much worse than Bush, as was Grant. Bush definitely isnt the worst.

Also, You cant really blame Iran's nuclearization on Bush. Perhaps he could do more to try and prevent it, but the situation is delicate and Bush certainly didnt cause it.

He's all but claimed the award and made the acceptance speech:

The Worst President in History? by Sean Wilentz (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history)

He's all but claimed the award and made the acceptance speech:

The Worst President in History? by Sean Wilentz (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history)
Hey, good linkie choice. I'm currently reading that too.
You shoulda printed Get Your War On from that issue, for posterity ... :D

Then why is he apologizing?

Since you have listened to him for four years, would you say that he did not support Bush's cause during the '04 election?

Also, he said he supported the war, he said he didn't vote for Bush because of his immigration policy.
I said I listened to him for years, not for four years. He has not been on that long. I've been listening to him for about wto and a half. The reason I know he didn't vote for bush in the last election is because I listened to him then. He mentioned his immigration policy, but, like most thinsg, that was just one reason. Listen to the audio.

I said I listened to him for years, not for four years. He has not been on that long. I've been listening to him for about wto and a half. The reason I know he didn't vote for bush in the last election is because I listened to him then. He mentioned his immigration policy, but, like most thinsg, that was just one reason. Listen to the audio.

My bad on that, I read 'for years' and got 'for four years'.

However, I did listen to the audio, and he was very distinct in saying that he thought Iraq was the right thing to do at the time, and only after the fact did he change his mind.

And a direct quote:

"The President’s January 7th, 2004 speech on immigration, his first trial balloon on his guest worker scheme, was a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t and didn’t vote for him in 2004. And I’m glad I didn’t."

He says that Iraq is a great blunder, that it was a wasted war, yet a speech on immigration is what lost his vote?


Also, do you remember him coming out and saying, "Iraq is a disaster, Bush caters to drug companies, his immigration policy is a joke, do not vote for George Bush!" (all of which were visible prior to his reelection) or did he spout republican rhetoric during the 2004 election?

My bad on that, I read 'for years' and got 'for four years'.

However, I did listen to the audio, and he was very distinct in saying that he thought Iraq was the right thing to do at the time, and only after the fact did he change his mind.

And a direct quote:

"The President’s January 7th, 2004 speech on immigration, his first trial balloon on his guest worker scheme, was a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t and didn’t vote for him in 2004. And I’m glad I didn’t."

He says that Iraq is a great blunder, that it was a wasted war, yet a speech on immigration is what lost his vote?


Also, do you remember him coming out and saying, "Iraq is a disaster, Bush caters to drug companies, his immigration policy is a joke, do not vote for George Bush!" (all of which were visible prior to his reelection) or did he spout republican rhetoric during the 2004 election?


Far be it me to defend anyone, but it strikes me as penny wise and pound foolish to not accept another voice that speaks out against the policies of this President and his administration. Frankly, I could care less his reasons why he speaks out against Bush, what matters is the fact that he speaks out against the President.

It is utterly infuriating to me the intractability, the idiotic unwillingness to accept conservatives who are against this president. My oldest, and best friend of 23 years is a dyed in the wool conservative, been a Republican all of his life and we served in the Air Force together.

We have always disagreed on certain things politically. But he apologized to me for voting for this guy in 2000 and also refused to vote for Bush in 2004. I don't care why he did it, I'm just glad he did.

My God, get over yourselves. This country is divided enough without rejecting those that can help us. We don't have to go to bed with this guy or even care why he is doing it.

I'll never send McIntyre flowers, but I am glad he is hammering Bush, by doing this he helps moderates and progressives. If for no other reason by instilling a sense of disgust and possibly being a factor in depressed Republican turn out in November.

He absolutely did cause it. First he called them part of an axis of evil, an honor they shared with a country that he then promptly invaded. Next he proved to them that we can't even handle a war with Iraq, a much less burdensom foe than Iran would be, because of his ineptitude. Do you think Iran woudl be this bold on the world stage if they didn't know there was no way we could handle Iraq and Iran at the same time? He is also responsible for Iran getting nukes for the same reason he is responsible for North Korea getting them. He has this stupid, ideologically rigid view of the world that prevents him from talking to these people. Iran is obvioulsy trying to get nuclear technology and Bush won't sit at the table with them. Instead, he sends Germany, France and teh UK to do it.

His rhetoric and subsequent actions puts Iran in the understandable position of believing that the US might invade them, nukes or no nukes.

His inept handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars emboldens Iran and his squandering of the world's goodwill towards America post 9/11 leaves Iran with the rightful feeling that world opinion has truned against us.

His refusal to engage them directly means that we have no real conduit through which to honestly understand what their intentions are and leaves them in exactly the same state with regards to ours.

Yeah, but other than all that, he didn't do a thing. :p

Far be it me to defend anyone, but it strikes me as penny wise and pound foolish to not accept another voice that speaks out against the policies of this President and his administration. Frankly, I could care less his reasons why he speaks out against Bush, what matters is the fact that he speaks out against the President.

It is utterly infuriating to me the intractability, the idiotic unwillingness to accept conservatives who are against this president. My oldest, and best friend of 23 years is a dyed in the wool conservative, been a Republican all of his life and we served in the Air Force together.

We have always disagreed on certain things politically. But he apologized to me for voting for this guy in 2000 and also refused to vote for Bush in 2004. I don't care why he did it, I'm just glad he did.

My God, get over yourselves. This country is divided enough without rejecting those that can help us. We don't have to go to bed with this guy or even care why he is doing it.

I'll never send McIntyre flowers, but I am glad he is hammering Bush, by doing this he helps moderates and progressives. If for no other reason by instilling a sense of disgust and possibly being a factor in depressed Republican turn out in November.

Bush is not the problem, the guys like McIntyre are the problem. Yes, Bush is a bad president, I knew he would be when I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. However, Bush would have never been elected if not for kneejerk ideologues like this who are irresponsibly partisan when we need responsible discourse and consideration.

This guy is a lock to support whatever candidate the republicans put up, not because of the quality of the candidates, but because of his conservative partisanship.

Bush is not the problem, the guys like McIntyre are the problem. Yes, Bush is a bad president, I knew he would be when I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. However, Bush would have never been elected if not for kneejerk ideologues like this who are irresponsibly partisan when we need responsible discourse and consideration.

This guy is a lock to support whatever candidate the republicans put up, not because of the quality of the candidates, but because of his conservative partisanship.

No Vittos. Guys like McIntyre aren't the problem. Their message is offensive, but they have the right to that message. It's our bloody fault for not coming out in mass numbers in 2004 and making sure we sent him back to Texas as a former President.

I could give a fig what you thought of Kerry, but no sane human being would think that Kerry would have been worse than what we had. Yet again we sat back and let a rather noisy bunch of cretins convince us as a nation that in some idiotic alternate Fantasyland that a man who won the Silver Star in combat along with three Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts was somehow a bad soldier, while a guy who served in the Texas National Guard rather indifferently was somehow a superior officer. This by trotting out a bunch of lying hacks whose point of view was somehow embraced by the people despite US Navy records being definitive in the manner in which it refuted the asinine claims of said, lying hacks.

As a veteran I am terribly pissed off at how the Republican party of late has controlled the officer corps and used it for political means. No soldier has the right to question the battle decorations of another soldier, especially 32 years after the fact. How many Americans know that the Silver Star is the third highest medal in all services (the intelligence service equivalent is the Intelligence Star) for valor on the battlefield? These awards not often given out and are NEVER cited for political reasons. Oh, and contrary to popular belief, no officer may put himself/herself in for such a citation.

I repeat, we need to take responsibility for ALLOWING this guy to be re-elected. No blaming the extremists or chuckle-headed, right-wing talk show hosts. Our record as an elective democratic republic is pathetic in the recent modern era, voter registration is pathetic, and turn out since the early 1970's has ranged from lukewarm to feckless. Is it any wonder a loud minority of this nation is winning at the ballot box?

No Vittos. Guys like McIntyre aren't the problem. Their message is offensive, but they have the right to that message. It's our bloody fault for not coming out in mass numbers in 2004 and making sure we sent him back to Texas as a former President.

I could give a fig what you thought of Kerry, but no sane human being would think that Kerry would have been worse than what we had. Yet again we sat back and let a rather noisy bunch of cretins convince us as a nation that in some idiotic alternate Fantasyland that a man who won the Silver Star in combat along with three Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts was somehow a bad soldier, while a guy who served in the Texas National Guard rather indifferently was somehow a superior officer. This by trotting out a bunch of lying hacks whose point of view was somehow embraced by the people despite US Navy records being definitive in the manner in which it refuted the asinine claims of said, lying hacks.

As a veteran I am terribly pissed off at how the Republican party of late has controlled the officer corps and used it for political means. No soldier has the right to question the battle decorations of another soldier, especially 32 years after the fact. How many Americans know that the Silver Star is the third highest medal in all services (the intelligence service equivalent is the Intelligence Star) for valor on the battlefield? These awards not often given out and are NEVER cited for political reasons. Oh, and contrary to popular belief, no officer may put himself/herself in for such a citation.

I repeat, we need to take responsibility for ALLOWING this guy to be re-elected. No blaming the extremists or chuckle-headed, right-wing talk show hosts. Our record as an elective democratic republic is pathetic in the recent modern era, voter registration is pathetic, and turn out since the early 1970's has ranged from lukewarm to feckless. Is it any wonder a loud minority of this nation is winning at the ballot box?

I voted for Kerry, I do not have to take responsibility for electing George Bush.

McIntyre is not an extremist, extremists don't get talk shows. McIntyre represents a very wide demographic of American people. The demographic he falls into and represents turned their brains off and allowed Bush to be elected in support of kneejerk conservative ideology. Even after Bush proved himself to be completely incompetent, it took his competent stance on immigration to convince this guy not to vote for him.

This guy is not reasonable, he is a kneejerk ideologue, and his ilk are the reason we have such a devisive political environment that only gives us worthless party lackees to vote for.

I have voted in every presidential election I have been eligible for, I take my vote seriously, I didn't vote for George Bush, I informed anyone who wanted to know and some who didn't who I was voting for and why, I will not accept responsibility for Bush's election. What I will not do is absolve this jerk and his type of their responsibility simply because of one rant on the radio.

Like the character assassination of Stalin by Khrushchev, public denunciation is the only way they can rebuild their credibility. I forsee much historical revisionism and self-flagellation in the US in the years to come.

Newsflash: Many conservatives (and nearly all paleoconservatives) opposed Bush from the very beginning. :rolleyes:

Newsflash: Many conservatives (and nearly all paleoconservatives) opposed Bush from the very beginning. :rolleyes:

To which I'll use the accusation which has been popularized to paint moderate Muslims as The Borg Collective of Jihad:

If the real conservatives and paleoconservatives just keep quiet and do not make a ruckus to oppose Bush and his neocon lackeys, then they are in actuality condoning and supporting Bush and his neocon lackeys.

To which I'll use the accusation which has been popularized to paint moderate Muslims as The Borg Collective of Jihad:

If the real conservatives and paleoconservatives just keep quiet and do not make a ruckus to oppose Bush and his neocon lackeys, then they are in actuality condoning and supporting Bush and his neocon lackeys.

They're either too lazy, too stupid, or too timid to speak up. :mad:

To which I'll use the accusation which has been popularized to paint moderate Muslims as The Borg Collective of Jihad:

If the real conservatives and paleoconservatives just keep quiet and do not make a ruckus to oppose Bush and his neocon lackeys, then they are in actuality condoning and supporting Bush and his neocon lackeys.

KYAHAHAHAHA! THE GUY WINS THE THREAD!!! :D :D :D :D :D

I have voted in every presidential election I have been eligible for, I take my vote seriously, I didn't vote for George Bush, I informed anyone who wanted to know and some who didn't who I was voting for and why, I will not accept responsibility for Bush's election. What I will not do is absolve this jerk and his type of their responsibility simply because of one rant on the radio.

I am not absolving him of any of the things he said.

But I'm not going to fault him and his ilk for just how lazy the United States has gotten as a democracy, nor do I blame you. You exercise your responsibility as a citizen and take it seriously.

Who I blame are the loudmouths (on both sides of the political fence) who moan, cry and whine and have never had the guts to either go out and vote in a primary election and vote against some of the clowns both parties put up as serious candidates. Each person who claims membership in a political party forget that the each party is predicated on it's members aggressively taking responsibility for being a party member and voting FOR who they like and voting against those people in the party they don't like.

Republican example: If the Republican Party puts up a lousy candidate like Ralph Reed for Lt. Governor in Georgia; a person who does not represent the foundation of the Republican party, the ideals of less government interference in personal lives; who only appeals to a very vocal and reactionist minority of the Republican Party, instead of copping out and voting for him, the members of the Georgia Republican Party must speak out pre-primary and say this guy is not a true Republican and ditch him either by forcing him out before the primary or voting for an alternative in enough numbers in the primary to keep him off the final ballot.

Democratic example: If a party member like Senator Joseph I Lieberman strays from the principles of the Democratic Party, it is up to the members of the Conneticut Democrtaic Party to show him the error of his ways. If he does not represent his Democratic constituency in the party and there is a better alternative running against him in the Conneticut primary, then it is up to Conneticut Democrats to vote against him in the primary and either cause him a major message that he is straying too far from the party or kick him out on his ear.

Send your party a message instead of walking into the voting booth and pulling straight party line like a brain dead zombie. Not every Republican is a person worthy of holding elective office. Not every Democrat is worthy of holding elective office.

Show them the door and let them know that their party members are watching them and holding them accountable.