I don’t recall the Republican outrage against Michelle Obama’s bare arms. Link?
Start with the link in post #6.
I did.
That link:
Who is Bobbie Lussier?
Following the links:
Is that what you meant?
Hillary ought to pick Michelle for VP. They would roll over Trump/Pence like a panzergruppen through Woodstock.
Most of the “Republican outrage” about Michelle’s arms that I saw was of the Facebook post variety, comparing her to the “classy” Laura Bush. The comments attached were usually, well, about what you’d expect for Facebook. Frothing racism galore.
But come to think of it, wasn’t the OP of the SRIOTD about Michelle Obama? Yes it was, although not about her arms.
When Bobbie Lussier said Michelle didn’t look like a First Lady, she didn’t mean casual wear or toned arms; she meant black.
I did recall it. But when I dug into this story yesterday, everything was traced to 2 NPR stories about Bobbie Lussier from Manassas, Virginia. Who allegedly spoke for many Republicans. So it turned out to be a nut-picking story.
Fashion articles noted the controversy over Michelle Obama’s right to bare arms. Ha!
The National Review wrinkled its nose, but it wasn’t too bad:
[QUOTE=National Review]
As a distant observer of fashion, but a close student of the semiotics of female power, I am a little puzzled by Michelle’s frequent choice of sleeveless dresses at official moments. She is an attractive woman, whose height gives her a commanding presence, and it is clear that she puts effort into toning those upper arms. So the dresses look good; but this is not about pretty. She is in her forties, and the sleeveless sheath is the province of younger women, and/or socialites; it works for cocktails or a barbeque, but not church or work. (And yes, she is clearly channeling Jackie Kennedy. But Jackie’s clothes — and everyone’s in the early 1960s — were a lot more grown up and sophisticated.) The sleeveless bit seems too casual, and maybe a little too revealing for the role she is currently playing, and the one to which she aspires. Successful First Ladies — and here Laura Bush is a good model — manage to convey a careful mix of distance and familiarity. Michelle’s difficult trick will be enough familiarity without going too far.
Read more at: Michelle on The View | National Review
[/QUOTE]
Anyway it’s worth noting that the conservative media didn’t go apeshit about this as far as we know, Facebook frothing notwithstanding.
Who cares? She’s some retired old nobody.
If everybody instantly remembers an outrage from four years ago, then it really happened.
Or you could Google Michelle Obama bare arms outrage to see just how many major news organizations reported similar comments over the years. These stories started appearing in 2009, as soon as Mrs. Obama became the first lady, years before Bobbie Luster made a new set of imbecilic statements. The Washington Post alone reported “hundreds” of reader comments.
If you researched the story at all, you did so remarkably ineptly. If you are simply dismissing the story because it doesn’t comport with your ideology then your response is even more contemptible.
“Contemptible” is a twenty year sentence for a parking ticket. Hit the target, but an artillery round was an extravagance.
Is there some prudish remnant of Victorian morays about bare arms being unladylike? Or “cheap”?
(Aside: Dolly Parton was asked how expensive was her wardrobe. She answered “Honey, you have no idea how much it costs to look this cheap.”)
There are tons of photos of Jackie Kennedy in sleeveless wear. I seem to remember she was considered classy.
Well, yes, until she married that Greek tradesman. Pearls were clutched.
I notice you fail to quote a single line of text from your citation that supposedly answers my question, which, as a reminder, was:
If the Washington Post is reporting hundreds of “reader comments,” and not identifying them as Republican party or elected officials, you cannot morph that into Republican outrage.
Care to actually quote any specific text that supports this claim, instead of simply providing unquoted links and demanding that I research and support your side of the question?
Fox Nation, Aug 2009: [INDENT][INDENT] Seems some people are actually outraged, outraged that First Lady Michelle Obama dared to bare so much leg by wearing shorts on a recent trip to the sweltering Grand Canyon.
OMG. First she wears a sleeveless dress, now this? [/INDENT][/INDENT] I think we can safely characterize Fox Nation as Republican. http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2009/08/19/michelle-obama-shorts-controversy
I’ve poked around the internet though, and most of the reporting I’ve seen has been more fashion magazine than Republican blue nosing. I’m inclined to take Bricker’s side on this, except that to note that I probably vaguely misremembered the nut picking story as well.
I will say that Facebook fiends who blathered about Michelle Obama’s dress have some explaining to do with regards to their radio silence about Melania. Also, I’d make a wager with regards to the political orientation of a majority of those WAPO comments, were there some way of ascertaining that, which there isn’t. (Translation: that’s a rhetorical bet.)
That reads like parody of outrage, as opposed to actual outrage. It could easily have come from ThinkProgress. (Outrage, outraged = shocked, shocked)
Ah, the famed Bricker “words have no context” defence.
Too bad you’re using it against the famed Mapcase “context is everything” counterplay.
I’m sorry, but that reads like sarcasm to me.
Context cannot create a Republican source where there is no attribution to a legitimate Republican policy setter or spokesperson.
Victorian morays? Didn’t know they were more prudish than the average eel. 
When you swam from the dock
and got one hell of a shock,
that’s a moray…
:d&r:
O tempura! O morays!