Ed Schultz: McCain is a Warmonger
Classy: two days ago, at North Dakota Democratic Party State Convention, far-left radio talk show host Ed Schultz was invited to “warm up the crowd before Barack Obama’s speech.” How did he warm them up? Right, by calling John McCain a “warmonger.” As could be expected from the man who says he campaigns clean, Obama didn’t denounce Schultz.
But then, after “numerous inquiries from Obama’s traveling press, the Obama campaign eventually responded with a comment.” Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki said in a written statement: “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”
Put the heat on him, increase the heat more, attack him, and then, finally, Obama acts like the campaigner he says he is.
Nothing different about Obama indeed.
What’s most interesting about this entire affair, though, is that it shows us how the Democrats will campaign against the GOP. Republicans are “warmongers” and “hatemongers.” The far-left will, undoubtedly, start attacking McCain incredibly aggressively ASAP.
Shaun Mullen’s idiotic post (a post that should have been pulled by the editors), calling Phil Gramm a terrorist, is a sign of things to come. As is Schultz’s ‘warming up speech.’
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
John McCain is a warmonger–he supports the Iraq war, and says he will for many years. He has also said he is "sorry to inform you there will be more wars." Ed Schultz is not "far left," he is voicing the opinion of the majority, as he does on almost every issue. Apparently, although the Obama campaign probably agrees with Schultz’s sentiment, they avoid name calling and prefer debating substance. I’m not above name calling. McCain is a warmonger.
And Matt K conveniently shows up to give an example of what we were discussing here.
According to Princeton.edu the definition of warmonger is "a person who advocates war or warlike policies". So by definition Ed Schultz was correct. I don’t care what side of the aisle he comes from. McCain advocates continuation of the Global War on Whatever so he is a warmonger. As a conservative my entire life, McCain and the rest of the GOP establishment are an embarrassment to limited government and non-interventionist policies that were the norm for many decades within the conservative movement.
Well and good, but the problem is, John McCain really is a warmonger, by definition even. Or is it politically incorrect to not sugar coat things these days? I don’t see how a man who sings "Bomb Bomb Iran" with such pleasure, could even have the possibility of shaking the image of a warmonger when it is apparently what he is at his core. Or are we moving into the age of NewSpeak? War is Peace, freedom is slavery!
Under the definition provided by 3 of our thread contributors (saving C Stanley), FDR and Harry Truman were "warmongers". As was Abraham Lincoln, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams (and his celebrated father), and the sizeable majority of the founding fathers – as were many notable Europeans throughout history (Winston Churchill, Jan Sobieski, etc.).
Fortunately, the definition provided by these three contributors is highly selective and, I suspect, deliberately disingenuous. They know (as well as I) that "warmonger" is not a clinical term, but a pejorative one; implying a preference for war, "commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war." (freeDictionary). And they have used it deliberately in this context with this intent. This is not unusual, but distressing given the seeming relish with which the tactic is deployed.
A man who spent nearly 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton in service to his country, and who has a greater understanding of the consequences of war than any of those seeking to denigrate his positions, is deserving of more respect than this. But this is something that the left appears incapable of doing, which is exactly C Stanley and MvdG’s point. Fortunately, as we observe the leftosphere consuming its own in the Clinton-Obama imbroglio, and the defamatory dialog ensuing therein, we can take solace that it clearly isn’t personal – or apparently even closely considered.
"Under the definition provided by 3 of our thread contributors (saving C Stanley), FDR and Harry Truman were "warmongers". As was Abraham Lincoln, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams (and his celebrated father), and the sizeable majority of the founding fathers – as were many notable Europeans throughout history (Winston Churchill, Jan Sobieski, etc.)."
And? Love them or hate them nobody can deny that FDR, Lincoln and Churchill were warmongers, particularly Churchill who bombed people for not paying their taxes to foreign overlords (guess where?). I don’t know much of many of the others but the founding fathers certainly were. The difference between Mad McCain and the FFs is that they proposed defending their own land and he proposes attacking other people’s.
Oh and BTW ask McCain about that little stay "in service to his country" (which derived no benefit whatsoever from it or any of his military "service". He’s been incredibly sensitive about releasing information on what happened to POWs in that war, and he seems to have actually committed treason. He’s an honourless man.
Can we call John McCain ‘white’? How about ‘old’? Can we say that he is ‘a politician’? How bout that he has ‘white hair’? Or is ‘a member of the Republican Party’? Can we say that John McCain is ‘a senator’? Can we say that he is ‘about 5′6"’? Can we call John McCain ‘a married man’? Can we suggest or state outright that John McCain ’speaks English’?
OF COURSE John McCain is a warmonger! When did we decide that we can not call the proverbial spade a spade?? Are we now abandoning the standard, Webster’s type definitions of words if they are deemed somehow less than flattering in a political context, or if the word itself sounds nasty? If a pro war hawk like John McCain is NOT a warmonger, who precisely, then, qualifies as one?!?
About 30% of the American public supports the war, half of that rabidly so. But suggest that even that 15% are warmongers, and, well, thems fightin’ words!
This has to have been one of the most idiotic posts made on the subject, yet.
And Ed Schultz…a socialist. So what. Does the fact he is a leftist curmudgeon somehow vitiate McCain’s M.O. as a warmonger?? How neocon tribal can you get? I am certainly no Democrat, but to dispute that McCain is a warmonger — or Bush, for that matter — is to twist and torque and distort language and honest political debate beyond all recognition. Get real.
Hey Ed- you forgot to mention the other war mongers: BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, AND CONGRESS for aiding and abetting by funding this illegal, immoral war! Why does McCain expect Obama to apologize for Schultz telling the truth? Guess he has nothing better to discuss! Go Ed!
What’s the scandal here? ("I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on!") Any cluck with an I.Q. over 80 who’s paid attention to McCain knows for certain that the so-called "maverick" is nothing but a warmonger. True, he serves great barbecue to the D.C. press corps, but that’s what he is. Fishmongers sell fish. Warmongers sell war. That’s who-and-what John McCain is.
So then, the prevailing definition of warmonger is anyone who concludes in any given situation, under any circumstances, that war is necessary; then proceeds accordingly. You claim that you cannot/will not differentiate between those who prefer war as a tool of diplomacy, and those who understand that it is sometimes necessary. Well. Then, in your context, "warmonger" has no more meaning than stating that McCain is 5′ 6". So why are you bringing it up?
Answer: because you are being dishonest (disingenuous no longer applies). Schultz did not warm up the North Dakota crowd by discussing McCain’s height (although discussing McCain’s race would not be above him, as contrary to JC’s assertion, that does carry some unsavory implications). Schultz knows perfectly well what the connotations of "warmonger" are, as do you – that’s why he used that term deliberately. And the Obamessiah realized quickly how badly others not of your ideological persuasion would regard this smear, so he quickly backtracked. He, at least, appears to recognize the distinction, even as you pretend not to.
Note to all: I try to be more civil in my discourse, but that time I lost control. Apologies are owed to Obama for the unpleasantly sarcastic reference "Obamessiah".