McCain "Fight With Me!" Crescendo (Convention Acceptance Speech)

YouTube ^ | Future President John McCain

[quesney]

I have never been so moved by a political speech.

The speech up until the final crescendo was workmanlike. It was only at the end that I realized it was all to lay the foundation for that incredible ending. It lays the details and facts that form the basis of the powerful emotion at the end -- made all the more powerful in that it is grounded in the real details of this man's history and the basis of his love of country.

To hear the cheers rising, and McCain struggling to raise his broken arms higher with each round of ever intensifying cheers, it was though McCain and the crowd were raising each other.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I can not get enough of the finale to this speech.

[Huck]

Anyway, this is just the typical O'Reilly fare...it's a sham(e) and FNC should be ashamed of it. But they're not.

Ashamed of constant #1 ratings? I don't think so. And here's a discussion of his show, and his cheesy expert, by people who WATCHED his program. I don't like him, but then, I rarely tune him in.

[Chet 99]

Agreed! I just hope the big audience stayed tuned in for the final minutes. What made it so good was its authenticity.

The protester disruptions were annoying. Someone needs to tell these crowds that the people watching on TV cannot hear the protesters and they’d best just ignore it and let security handle.

[SuziQ]

It was an extremely powerful ending!

[SuziQ]

I’ve heard that because of his broken arms as a P.O.W., McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders.

True, and did you notice that when he introduced Sarah Palin, in OH, that she kept her arms lower, when she waved, and didn't raise them as high as she might have? She did the same thing onstage after the two families gathered after McCain's speech. When she was standing next to him, she kept her arms lower, but when she moved away from him, she raiser her arms higher to wave at the folks higher up. I thought that was very respectful of her.

[Cicero]

Yes, I did notice that, and I admired it greatly. She is a very thoughtful person, always thinking of what she can do for others and with others, and not just about herself.

[Cicero]

Yes. McCain has sometimes done the wrong thing, but with this perspective it looks as if maybe he didn’t do so deliberately or because he was ego-driven.

Which means that he can still grow and learn, even at his age and with all his political experience. He really DOES want to reform politics and root out corruption. He just needs to have people he can talk with who can help him see the best way to do it. He was listening too much to the press and the pundits when he went for McCain-Feingold. I hope he has learned better.

[Desdemona]

Maybe he really thought that McCain-Feingold would reform political corruption. He was wrong, but at least if his motives were good maybe he can learn to do better next time.

Even before Thursday night, I do not believe that John McCain would KNOWINGLY put this country in danger. Some of his actions and words may not be thought out or researched thoroughly and can and are errors, but he'd be more likely to admit mistakes.

[Toespi]

Taken from the scene in Braveheart, when Mel Gibson was rallying his troops as he screamed, “fight with me.” All McCain had to do was finish it with FREEDOM.

[Fred]

Youtube of Convention

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog hanging with some freepers and lurkers

[Crolis]

Wow..I didn’t notice that, but I’ll have to review my TIVO recordings of the speeches and see. That tells me that Sarah Palin is a class act. I stayed up to watch McCain’s speech Thursday night and was personally moved.

[SuziQ]

Could also explain why he left the Navy, in which his father and grandfather had both served so long, because he saw that he could help his country in a different way. After working as the Senate liason, he saw who wielded the power to make needed changes in this country, and he realized it wasn’t the military.

[SuziQ]

LOL! That was pretty good! SirKit saw Triumph in the background when we were watching the convention coverage the other night. I’ll have to send him that link.

[patriotspride]

” I saw that too. And O’Reilly was laughing like the bloviating falafel-eating empty-headed Ted Baxter he is. The body language lady is a liberal plant. She ALWAYS, without exception, interprets the body language of conservative speakers as negative, mean, arrogant, insecure, angry. She ALWAYS interprets, without exception, the body language of liberal speakers as confident, sincere, thoughtful, congruent, powerful. And who can argue with her? She’s the body language expert! *barf*”

Somebody should get her a stylist, as that looked like a Hawaiian Luau dress.................

Also agree about her bias....it comes through very clearly

[nathanbedford]

Your replies embolden me to post the balance of the incomplete vanity which remains unedited but I post it now because it begins to address the question you both the have raised. I am groping my way to a conclusion and I hope you can share some insights:

And now we know the rest of the story.

This is not to say that John McCain was instantly sanctified in all respects, far from it. He still had to swim his way out of a giant mental, moral and spiritual hangover from his ordeal. His screwing around would cost him his marriage before he could swim to shore. Even today, the old self bursts out in temper. But when one lays this template over the rest of John McCain’s career, one should have little difficulty accepting the story as being essentially true (I for one believe it) and to accept it as a convincing explanation of his career and his conception of his role as president.

Before considering the implications of all of this for conservatives, it is instructive to consider what it means to liberals.

In a word: "nothing." Liberals do not see it because they cannot see it. They simply do not get it. The whole idea of gaining empowerment through surrendering is as psychologically repugnant to liberals as is the idea of accepting a higher authority in their lives. Consider the Democrat party to be a gigantic creaking contrivance to legitimatize liberals in their insatiable quest to feed their egos. The job of this machine is to provide rationalizations. The obvious examples are sex without consequences and abortion without guilt. These examples demonstrate that the rationalization machine can be quite deadly as it kills 3 to 4 million babies a year. The pernicious doctrines emanating from The Frankfurt School such as moral relativism, feminism, and critical theory find application not just in cultural issues like abortion which kill babies but across the board, touching all government policy and every aspect of our lives.

To repeat, the whole subconscious purpose of this Democrat apparatus is to turn thinking on its head and provide a language to liberals so they can continue to play God (especially with other people's lives). Liberals will never about-face and cast away everything that feeds their ego addictions. That is why we hear them using English words but it comes out as a different language.

John McCain was released from his invisible bondage in that cell in the Hanoi Hilton but what did he replace it with?

Evidently, George Bush assumed traditional Christian values and standards which presumably have guided him since then. I'd venture that, on the positive side, Bush's Christian faith lent him the courageto persevere in Iraq. On the negative side, it made him too serene and indifferent to criticism so that he never fought the public relations battle necessary to see his policies through.

What evidence is there that John McCain became a traditional Christian? Or even that he came to believe in God? He has invoked the name of the deity, even in this speech but does that mean an amorphous deism or a recognizable and traditional Christian doctrine? Does it matter?

I have long posted on these threads that George Bush's Christian commitment and precedence over his orthodox conservatism. I argued that if the two precepts clashed on a particular issue, his Christian belief system would prevail. I always thought that this meant that George Bush put Christianity above party whereas most of us might not have seen a conflict on a given issue. Hence we had fetes to the Kennedy’s, African aids relief, and “compassionate” conservatism.

Obviously John McCain has not accepted Reagan conservatism as an orthodoxy to which he has consistent resort. If he was a maverick in the sense that he was the delinquent before his epiphany, he is still a maverick in the sense that he is notoriously (or "famously" if one is a Democrat) independent on matters of principle. What are those principles?

The great danger to conservatism, indeed a great danger to the Republic, is that McCain has no fixed identifiable set of principles but operates ad hoc.

[to be continued... ]