Michael Shure's Direct Contradiction

Email Print posted by ramroid 03/18/2008 09:16:06 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
In his effort to justify Hillary as the democratic presidential nominee, Michael Shure's stretching the consistency of his argument. 

    Michael Shure seems like a good and genuine guy.  And I know he is BUT... he was talking about a adjudicated Clinton primary victory as leaving a bad taste in peoples mouths and he's left a real bad taste in my mouth. (sorry, hmm..thats gross) 
    The last show that he hosted he argued with Jenk about the Clinton viability and he argued that Florida and Michigan should revote their primaries because "the Democrats are about making sure that every single vote is relevent";  That this is more important than the recently established and agreed upon rules that those primaries wouldn't count.  "It would be hipocritical.."
Hipocritical?
    Later in the argument he goes on to state that essentially subverting the results favoring the popular winner (most likely Obama) in favor of some sort of adjudication to decide who gets the nomination; that that's okay because its within the "rules".  What abount the Votes being relevent.
    Man,  that is a direct, point-to-point contradiction. It shows to me Michael's desire to rationalize any argument in favor of Hillary.  He wouldn't argue the same points if Hillary was ahead.  I'm sure Michael would say that he would though.  And Michael, I do like you.
< Sub-Primes, Steering, and Spitzer | What Happened to the Bootstraps? >
 Display:
Michael Shure's Direct Contradiction | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
The soft underbelly of the democratic party (none / 0)
Listening to yesterdays show was sort of like masterbating with a cheese grater--somewhat amusing but mostly painful.  If you listen closely you could almost hear Michaels left eye twitching as he strained logic and reason to get to his desired conclusion.  This is not the first time I have had the same reaction to Michael though.  He strikes me as an equivocating modern democrat who rationalizes and apologizes for every fuck up his cherished democratic party has made in the last 25 years.  I guess I never really thought about it that much but after yesterday (and given the accumulation of nonsense I have heard from him over the last couple of years) he sort of makes me want to puke he is such a smarmy little spineless skinbag.  Maybe thats too harsh.  It is still rather early. 

by nfc on 03/18/2008 11:34:04 AM EST

This guy is so pro-Clinton (none / 0)
That I could hardly listen to the show yesterday. Yes, we all know Cenk is for Obama, but at least he is objective about it. Michael even has the same totally condescending tone that the Clinton folks have, as though they are somehow entitled to the nomination. Let's be clear here, Clinton will NOT win this nomination. It was over after Texas for all intents and purposes. The question that the Clinton supporters now need to answer is once they finally realize that they will not win, will they support Obama and the party or will they try and blow things up so that McCain will win giving them another shot in 4 years. I suspect that it will be the latter. I think that Obama has the potential to sweep in a tide of change in the congress that Hillary will not be able to do. Status quo in congress is probably her best bet. That being said, as much as I think that the Clinton campaign is totally about the status quo, if they somehow find a way to win the nomination without gaming the system, I will support her for president. We CANNOT afford even 4 more years of the Repubs in charge or there won't be much of a country left to be president of.

by mijoh on 03/18/2008 02:02:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Assumptions (none / 0)
Cenk is objective and Mike is condenscending? (last time I checked Cenk accused Hillary of being a thief) but Mike's tone is just to much to handle?

Whoever said she was entitled to the nomination? (or is that just a feeling?)

Where are the Clintonites that have refused to "support" Obama? Show me a Clinton supporter who has said they would help McCain win? (That is what you suspect)

Note: I have seen Obama supporters, at this site, say that they would never support Hillary.

You "think" Obama has the "potential" to sweep in change that Hillary doesn't (based on what? Who was the last prominent Pub that Obama has beaten? What was the last tough or even contested election he was in?) or is this just another one of those feelings again.

If she somehow wins without "gaming" the system. what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if she wins by super delegates she "gamed" the system?

1 thing that you said is true Mike is a hillary supporter, he sounded rational and sober and gave factual reasons for his positions. He didn't assume other peoples positions or read their minds or accuse them of wrongdoing with no facts or evidence. Mike makes several interesting and factually accurate points. One being is that you don't call a baseball game in the 7th inning just because the home team is ahead. Neither candidate can win the nomination without the superdelegates.

You seem like a "will of the people guy" so I will ask you. If Obama wins the pledged delegates and Hillary wins the popular vote who should get the nomination?

I have always said that I will support the nominee, whoever it may be, period.

by LORD FOUL on 03/18/2008 04:48:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm assuming that you're addressing the commenters (none / 0)
I don't have alot of time to address Lord Foul point by point.  (not that i have to; he makes good points) but he ask alot of questions so I assume he wants answers, maybe not nessesarily mine though.  Anyways, My post was written to illustrate that when you ARE objective you don't find yourself in the midst of a contradiction.  I'm speaking generally here.  If your support is principled you are often innoculated from that sort of thing.  You're consistent.  If, however you are arguing for the sake of justifying the ends, often you can find yourself stretching your rationale to accomodate contradicting contentions.  I'm not saying anybody's wrong to argue in favor of Clinton.  Cenk is pretty damn consistent though.  
    -I seems pretty plain that Hillary believes that her candidacy was a forgone conclusion when she offered Obama the Vice Presidency.  I mean, what's that?  Losing&nbs p;a year of front-runner status?  It must be hard to let go.
    -I'm sure that there are plenty of Hillary supporters that will refuse to support Obama.  Do you remember the guest on the show about a week back that interviewed a group of rural white males where one stated that he supported Clinton but would help campaign for McCain if Obama got the nomination because "I ain't votin' for that N-word"  It was on just last week.  And there's a lot more where that guy came from.  I personally will have a tough time voting for Hillary because of her industry ties (which is why I KNOW she will not "sweep" in change) and the way she campaigned (the bad taste in the mouth).  
    Also Obama did beat Alan Keys to become a senator who, I believe was more formidible that the a-hole that Hillary beat in New York.  I mainly base that on the fact that Keys was a well known TV pundit and radio wackjob.  The other dude was just that.  Thats slightly a weaker argument on my part.  Or the whole thing may be pretty weak.
   

by ramroid on 03/18/2008 08:38:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
last thing (none / 0)
If Hillary won the popular vote but Obama won the delegate count then I think we can talk about who deserves the nomination, BUT thats the ONLY scenario from which we'll talk.  No funny business!

by ramroid on 03/18/2008 08:52:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally (none / 0)
Ethics. No funny business my friend, I agree if Obama wins the popular vote he should get the Nomination period end of discussion. I will support him whole heartedly.

Thank you there is hope for us after all.

by LORD FOUL on 03/19/2008 03:41:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ruff (none / 0)
yea, thats a ruff post but man I totally agree. Shure is struggling to find logic in his reasonings and is completely unable to see his stance has been mired by the inhability to divorce himself from being "a Democrat" and staunch Hillary supporter. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Obama did what Hillary did in Mi and FLA I somehow doubt he would be saying the same thing. I think his Hillary support trumps even his clinging to the party. But you know.. who cares. whatever. He's an ok fill in man.. though I just want Cenk to come in and tear into him limb from limb...

by nozini on 03/19/2008 12:55:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Michael Shure's Direct Contradiction | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: