I was not a McCain fan, but is this what people do now? Attack somebody's ghost? Is this typical of conservative meetings?
Apparently the chief offender was Michelle Malkin, but sounds like there was applause.
https://www.citizentribune.com/news/pol … 32674.html
Obviously, the level of dialogue, respect, and manners is pretty disappointing.
I think this was taken out of context. She was speaking to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and to John McCain as if he were still there. She was putting the blame on waning Republicans, to heck that one is dead, for not passing an immigration law that she favors. I'm not condoning her or her talk even in context because I think we have two new groups of radicals, liberal and conservative, that we should be wary of. I think our concerns should be what kind of young people have we raised in this political atmosphere that we've allowed to prosper in our country.
OK, so she admonishes the ghost of a respected lawmaker and Omar spews anti-Semitism, again I say what kind of a generation do we have in store to take over from the waning politicians of both parties?
I listened to the clip. She called out an entire group, with McCain's name included at the end. We don't speak ill of the dead but the gist was both parties have done nothing to push forward an agenda she would like to see pushed.
I don't see what good could be expected of a deceased individual, in regards to reform. But, I think this is a tempest in a teapot.
That is my perspective also.
We can hear, (and see), the context of her remark in this video of her full speech.
*the McCain reference starts at the 8-minute mark.
Thanks for the added link. I had assumed something had to have been left out on the original link provided. It appears not, unless I missed something. I did skip along every minute or two after that one reference to see if there was anything else.
Which leaves me to wonder (if I didn't skip a smoking gun) how the OP could honestly justify the title to this thread.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4325 … ohn-mccain
Seems like lots of people were offended by the reference.
I am not surprised. Seems like a lot of people search for offense at every turn these days. It must be fashionable.
crankalicious. Morning Joe said it, so I must have heard it wrong when I listened to it.
"MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Monday denounced as "hellacious" and "inhumane" statements made about the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), saying that a reference to his "ghost" was a low point for the event."
Here is what was said - along with the context of the statement:
Congress has repeatedly mandated a nationwide visa entry-exit system to track legal short-term visa holders. But one has yet to be built—even in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which were perpetrated in part by several illegal alien visa overstayers. E-verify has been stalled. Sanctuary cities metastasized. And BOTH parties are to blame – and yes I’m looking at you, retired Paul Ryan, and yes I'm looking at you Mitch McConnell, and yes I'm looking at you Bush family, and yes I'm looking at you the ghost of John McCain."
I don't see any "hellacious" and "inhumane" statements made about the late Sen. John McCain." He was mentioned, (as in his ghost was), as part of a group regarding a failed task.
What is hellish about that? From this, you believe lots of people agree with him?
After seeing the context and transcript, do you believe it was a hellish and inhuman statement?
I am sticking with Live to Learn, the OP was misleading.
Joe and others were upset that people applauded and I've seen several references to the concept that people were applauding that McCain was dead. Both his wife and daughter denounced the reference.
Do I think it was over-the-top? Nope, but I have a sick sense of humor. Honestly, I don't think the speaker did anything too bad, but applauding his death, which some in the audience apparently did, is pretty low. That said, such things happen on both sides.
So, we couldn't get any traction claiming offense by the speaker so we turn to the audience to take imagined umbrage.
I think the fact that we are pretending an entire line of thought and a fairly long sentence did not precede the applause is rather indicative of a probable truth that you may know the applause was for the entire thought and not the one liner you hope to convince others it was attributed to.
I think the absurdity of these arguments is slowly finding fewer and fewer gullible people to buy into them, which I think is a good thing. In the long run. Taking a flying leap off of the edge of reason, in order to create a bizarrely negative take on a single moment (which is not so surgically removed from context that it can be hidden from the casual observer who insists on truth) is losing the power it once held to divide.
There were quite a few people who made the point I am making. I am merely repeating it. The McCain family seemed quite upset.
Of course the McCain family wouldn't approve of any comment they saw as portraying their dad in a bad light. That does not, in any way, support the title of this thread or your claims.
Attacking dead people who spent their lives serving their country has no place in political speeches of either party.
It's a low blow. The fact that she mentioned other names is irrelevant. Dead people can't defend themselves.
But "either party" isn't responsible for weirdo irrelevant Michelle Malkin's strange disgraceful remarks about great American hero John Mccain, the Communist Russian Republican party is and she was hosted by the alt-right CONservative CPAC Hate Fest of lies, anger and racism:
Try not to drag the Democratic Party into something they had no part in:
Your comment sounds like you are saying it's a "low blow" to say anything that isn't complimentary about any dead person.
I say that because I didn't read the context of the inclusion of John McCain's ghost in a group of names as is being described.
Is it safe to assume you did read the full context of the comment, (included in this thread), and still feel it was a low blow just to include his name? That is all I found in the "offending" speech. I didn't read anything that singled-out McCain alone.
Did I misread your intent? Was it only the inclusion of the name that you think was wrong?
Rhetorically speaking, your thought would preclude any discussion about the dead presidents on a "10 Worst Presidents" list.
From the right-wing point-of-view, McCain did betray them, so I can see why they're upset.
If McCain didn't betray his own beliefs then whatever they say simply means he didn't share theirs. Not an insult.
I don't see how McCain is any different in that respect than other successful politicians. They are pragmatists much more than they are idealists.
Funny, I'm defending a semi-conservative, pro-military Republican and getting pushback from the conservatives on here.
I suggest it's the extreme right wing and not just the right wing that is delighted he is dead and still cheers at the thought of it.
Let's not loose site of the fact that Hero John McCain BETRAYED Bozo Trump and Russian Republicans in Congress by STOPPING them from TERMINATING Obama-CARE Health Insurance for Millions of Americans while Rubio, "Mutt" McConnell who presides over one of the POOREST states in the union, Rand space man Paul and the majority of CONseravtive senators who will be voted out of office very soon, VOTED In Favor of DESTROYING the Health-Care of Millions of Americans: Unconscionable:
Weirdo Michelle Malkin is an irrelevant alt-right nut case always looking for attention so she can try to peddle products to the uneducated gullible few, just like Donald Trump, the Trump children, Roger "dimwit" Stone who should be going straight to prison next week, Sean Hammity and the rest:
I read the statement and watched the video. It's simply a low blow to attack a dead person for political gain.
McCain's life, death and memory are still fresh in everyone's minds. Attacking someone who recently died is much different than attacking a President who died decades or centuries ago.
I understand what you are saying. Regarding the statement, I don't see it as any more of an attack on McCain than it was on any of the other names mentioned. So on that, we disagree.
I think the OP, and the spark that prompted it are just partisan spin.
To your later mentioned point about push-back from Conservatives; I am not at all a Maulkin fan. I supported McCain's decisions that gained him the ire of the Right. And I also criticized the idiots that celebrated his death or made political hay from it with anti-McCain posturing.
R.I.P. John McCain
I don't think partisanship has anything to do with my view of Maulkin's comment.
I didn't find her attack more of an attack on McCain. Just an inappropriate one for a national leader who died a few months ago of a horrible cancer.
Regarding partisanship on here, I just found it interesting that I was to the right of the rightists.
I don't think I said anything or meant to imply that your own comments on this issue are partisan.
After all, you did make a recent comment in praise of Joe Biden ...
You didn't say anything about partisanship promisem. I was just emphasizing that my take on this McCain controversy had nothing to do with an agreement with the CPAC message
I think that whether it was in poor taste or "inappropriate" will be in the eye of the beholder. I don't even find it inappropriate.
And even worse than passing Biden, I have been known to even say something good about Bill Clinton. (well, at least once I did)
I don't see it as a low blow unless McCain fought for whatever this woman was advocating and the inclusion of the name in a list of people she felt had not fought for it was a lie.
So he didn't support her agenda. That doesn't mean whatever he supported wasn't, in his mind, more important.
The fact that he didn't support her extremist agenda doesn't justify attacking a dead man who can't defend himself.
Count me in agreement with your comment higher up: "We don't speak ill of the dead".
Exactly. In addition, McCain was a public figure, so when a public figure supports or doesn't support certain positions, they will receive public criticism. In context, mentioning McCain wasn't an attack on a dead person; it was a criticism of positions he took - totally valid.
If she wanted to mention him, she could've said "Im talking about McCain. And I'm talking to you, Ryan," etc. But she obviously knew what she was doing and she knew her audience. She left him for last, she made a pause. Then she mentioned his ghost while pointing up. And got her standing O. I noticed the carefully placed word metastasized.
And then she mocked his widow.
I guess she wanted some press and got it. Good for her.
Another despicable person. Yay.
I don't get why is a surprise that some people enjoyed his death since it was made public by most of them.
Some people here in Hubpages are not that far, judging by the comments.
I agree it was a scripted performance. But I still don't see it as a hellish and inhumane attack.
I had to go looking for your reference to Malkin mocking Cindy McCain, and what I found was a tweet reference:
Cindy McCain tweeted: "You never knew @SenJohnMcCain . You should be so lucky."
Malkin responded with a tweet: "So triggered..."
*(an insensitive response at best, a purposely callous one at worst - I would attribute it to the worst)
That is all I could find. Yet it is described by you as mocking her, which is tame compared to the description in the article:
The words, "So triggered" in a text-only tweet were described as" "So how did Malkin respond? With absolute glee that she was able to get under the skin of a grieving widow, that’s how."
I missed it. Where is the "absolute glee" shown? Maybe I should have checked to see if the author was a Scarborough associate.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'll not continue conversing in this thread after the thinly veiled insults of other posters.
by Jack Lee 11 months ago
Now he tells us...Normally, I would not attack someone when they are down especially with terminal illness.However, this is just self serving grand standing.What is wrong with someone who is so full of himself?If it wasn't for Sarah Palin, he would have lost even bigger in the 2008 election.It was...
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
The old guy still has a little "maverick" in him. He went up against other members of the GOP in order to defend Hillary's aide:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … redirect=0I'm sure many of you will disagree, but I still think he and Hil would have made a great team!
by Jack Lee 22 months ago
Recent events surround Senator McCain leads one to wonder. Is he qualified to continue as Senator?He seems confused in the Comey hearing. His latest comments about Trump vs. Obama have people wondering. What is he thinking? Why is he still in the GOP? Is he suffering from TDS?
by hubby7 10 years ago
What does everybody think about John McCain choice of Sarah Pahlin as his Vice Presidential pick?My feeling is that she might be a bit too parochial with too little experience. That my feeling. However, I admit I don't know much about her right now. Does anyone? Perhaps upon learning more about...
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
It cannot be healthy for a man of his advanced age to be on such an extended tirade.He has had a long and illustrious political career.Now he's the rabid pitbull (without lipstick) snarling at the legs of:Susan RiceHillary ClintonAnd now Chuck HagelReally, John? Is this how you want to be...
by IslandBites 7 months ago
John McCain, senator and former presidential candidate, dies at 81"It's been quite a ride. I've known great passions, seen amazing wonders, fought in a war, and helped make peace. I've lived very well and I've been deprived of all comforts. I've been as lonely as a person can be and I've...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|