Cuccinelli vs Science

[Bricker]

@Duke

One also has to have a tiny, tiny wonder as to why the vast majority of your nitpicks are to defend political allies. Yes, you brought up your defense of Patrick Kennedy early, but it is the exception which tests the rule; you certainly don’t proclaim your political opponents whom you defend to be “unjustly accused” (and if the OP is too early to accuse them of misdeeds, how is it soon enough to declare the accusation unjust?) as if you have somehow been given the task of defending their honor.

Well, seldom do I need to defend my usual opponents, because the board is full of people interested in doing that. However…

Defending Ted Kennedy.

@Bricker

This is absurd.

If there is any evidence of Ted Kennedy’s drunkeness when the accident occurred, let’s have it. Otherwise, he’s not remotely a murderer.

Defending Pelosi against the charge that she was a diva insisting on a big plane:

@Bricker

The Speaker is the second person in line for the Presidency. It seems utterly obvious to me that she should have a government plane that is capable of taking her back home without refueling. Hastert did, but of course his home is Illinois, much closer, so this didn’t come up.

Thirty years ago, I’d have said that the Speaker should suck it up and fly commercial. Today, that would be madness. Ms. Pelosi should fly on whatever military plane is equipped to move her and her staff non-stop.

Now, I don’t know details of plane models, but that’s my view of what the policy should be, and it’s a no-brainer.

Pitting the GOP for their disingenuous defense of Foley:

@Bricker

My reaction to the ACTUAL ill remains as it was yesterday: Foley’s resignation was correct; he should be criminally investigated; and the GOP leadership should be vigorously investigated as well. If it develops that Hastert, or anyone in the GOP leadership, knew about these criminal acts and did nothing, he should resign or be forced out, and subject to criminal process as well. It’s a very simple equation.

My reaction to the tactics that are appearing from the Right on this is utter disgust. “The Dems set him up!” Yeah, suuuure they did. And even if they did – what of it? He DID the acts in question.

Defending Keith Olbermann against sneers:

@Bricker

Yesterday’s Page Six in the New York Post includes:

Now, seriously – the reaction was not ridiculous. We had actual people get anthrax powder in the mail. Why they chose to be so dismissive and contempteous of Olbermann is beyond me. This was just crumby, crappy, jerkish behavior.

Pitting Ann Coulter:

@Bricker

Mine is right here.

“Post-9/11 our philosophy should be: Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences.”

This from Ms. Coulter. A stunningly awful and racist comment.

There is absolutely legitimate room for scorn and derision for radical Islamists who threaten our existence with terrorist tactics and violence. What they wear on their heads is irrelevant. The phrase “ragheads” is ugly and devoid of meaning. Literally, it encompasses peaceful people who choose to cover their heads for traditional or religious reasons. No reasonable person could take issue with that; no reasonable person would use a derogatory term that lumps such people in with murderous bastards.

My ire is saved for those who use terror and violence as tools. Also, for those who spew ignorant hatred. Today, that’s Ms. Coulter.

Praising Senator Kerry:

@Bricker

But I certainly agree it would be proper and fitting to acknowledge that Kerry’s service to the country took a far more personally dangerous form than Bush’s own did, and that Kerry faced that challenge with honor and dignity, and was a true American hero.

I guess these are all exceptions that prove the rule? That’s one mighty rule, huh?

Just out of curiosity: how many times have YOU defended the opposition?