So, in other words, you were full of shit when you compared the two things?
About that story on Spawn of Palin…
First cited story is by a Mr. Geoffrey Dunn, about whom I know next to nothing. Whether or not he qualifies as a Democrat operative is open to question, blithe presumptions notwithstanding.
Mr. Howard Kurtz, of *Fox News *notoriety, we may be fairly sure is not. So, thus far at least, evidence to support the inference “…And this is one of the the few things Democrats did better…” has not been sufficiently offered.
Well, those are other words.
No one in this thread has come close to denying that the idiotic notion was floated,* and given far more attention than it merited, Bricker. But you were asked for a headline, specifically. Pointing out some of the unmerited attention that it got does not satisfy that request.
You make yourself look a little less good with each post that implies that you’re being beset by a bunch of stubborn meanies who won’t accept the evidence you’ve presented.
*In the event that I’m mistaken about that assertion, please accept my apology for the error, consider that assertion withdrawn, and put me down to assist with a double-helping of disdain for anyone who is making the claim.
The thing that constantly baffles me about Bricker’s outrage about the Sarah Palin pregnancy thing is not the fact that he frequently compares rumors-flying-around-and-being-discussed-as-rumors with deliberately-chosen-profressional-newspaper-headlines, or any of the other utter analogy fails.
It’s that claiming your teenage daughter’s baby as your own is an INCREDIBLY NOBLE AND SELFLESS THING TO DO. It’s obviously dishonest in a sense, but it’s also something that is going to greatly enhance the quality of life of your daughter and your grandchild at great cost to yourself. In fact, the sleaziest thing about that rumor is that it falsely claims that Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter would get knocked up out of wedlock. Fortunately, they were able to disprove the rumor entirely because of the fact that Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter DID, in fact, get knocked up out of wedlock… but a DIFFERENT time than the one alleged.
If Sarah Palin had publicly claimed her daughter’s special needs baby as her own, and raised it, that would have been the best thing I’ve ever heard of her doing.
I don’t see anything negative about Palin’s daughter getting knocked up and if it had in fact with Trig, and Palin made a not-uncommon arrangement to raise him as her own… well, that’s how Jack Nicholson got his start.
There’s no permutation in the above that should make a person who wasn’t a TOTAL FUCKING MORON think less of Palin. Rather, a person who isn’t a TOTAL FUCKING MORON should have his opinion of Palin downgraded by listening to her speak for five minutes.
Bobby Darin, too.
I don’t agree.
Agreeing to raise the children would certainly be noble, but falsely claiming parentage doesn’t seem at all admirable.
I wasn’t initially.
And what point would be proved by limiting the request to a headline in any event?
I suppose, given the subject in the OP was about headlines, it would prove the point that SOMETIMES liberal Dopers are capable of staying on topic. Because, AFAICT, your “I wasn’t initially” appears to be just a matter of you changing the subject. That no one was cooperating with you in that shouldn’t be viewed as reflecting badly upon your interlocutors.
Sure it does if the objective is to protect your daughter’s reputation. (Granted, probably more of an issue 200 years ago than today…)
Yeah, but with all that money involved, who wouldn’t be tempted…
You know, if you were comparing the Palin pregnancy rumor to the Clintons killed Vince Foster rumor, or any of the other baseless accusations made against the Clintons by Republicans (and which they obtained public funding and a special prosecutor to investigate), or to the Obama is Kenyan ‘theory’, you might actually have something there. Some Democrat supporters did once, briefly, get excited by a baseless rumor about a Republican national candidate for high office in the same sort of way that Republicans have repeatedly, and at length, got excited about baseless accusations about Democrats. However, apart from the fact that it indirectly involved a baby, the incident bears no resemblance to, and is not at all “the same” sort of thing as, the deliberately offensive headline that is the subject of this thread.
How in the world does Bricker think these things are even remotely the same? I seriously do not get it. You picked two stories that are about babies of political figures. That’s the only similarity I see. One is alleging that Sarah Palin is covering up for her daughter’s pregancy. The other calls a newborn baby a disgusting liberal. One is an actual question, even if you might think it is irrelevant. The other is just vile hatred. No one has said anything nasty about Trig.
Whether you want to call it tu quoque or not, you are trying to equate two things that aren’t equal, in order to make one side not look so bad. It may be in direct response to someone else’s claims, but it’s still a horrible argument.
And Ted Bundy.
It’d be kind of amusing if the vast majority of Americans who react negatively to the idea of Trig not being Palin’s child but raised by her, were people who were going to vote Republican anyway, whereas those who are indifferent or view such an idea as positive for Palin were going to vote Democrat regardless.
It belatedly occurs to me that this was a useless observation. If the goal is to usefully smear Palin (ie reduce her chance of winning), one SHOULD push stories likely to alienate her supporters.
Thing is, anyone who’d think less of Palin for raising her grandchild (especially a handicapped grandchild) as her own son is, not to put too fine a point on it, a fucking idiot.
If the agreement between Sarah and Bristol was that Sarah would raise the kid as her own I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s none of our business.
Unless you mean falsely claiming to have delivered the child, but even that doesn’t seem wrong to me considering the kid’s interests.
ETA: pretty much what Bryan said.
The basic honesty of people who serve in public office is our business. I generally agree that intrusion into their private lives sometimes crosses the line, but that this is so is not an excuse for dishonesty.
The article linked to earlier appeared to me to be the work of a thorough investigative journalist. If, as the article implies is possible, Palin put “keeping up appearances” ahead of the health and well-being of an about-to-be-born child, then that is very much a matter of public interest, as it speaks to her integrity as a human being.
I don’t believe it is in a child’s interest to spend many years of his life believing a lie that you know will eventually be exposed by one means or another. That, in my view, would be more traumatic than knowing the truth from the beginning.
And once again through the magic of Brickerism we have managed to turn a thread about a disgusting headline in the New York post, into a thread arguing about an unfounded attack on Sarah Palin. To get things back on track:
Bricker, do you approve of the the headline in the New York Post? YES or NO:
If yes, then defend it without pointing out some thing that the other side did that was vaguely similar. The rapes commited by some American soldiers in Europe, doesn’t make the Rape of Nanking OK, and for that matter, the Rape of Nanking doesn’t make the rapes committed by American soldiers OK. It is possible for two sets of people on two different sides to both do bad things. That doesn’t absolve them, or even make both sides equally bad (hint, check magnitude an frequency).
If No, then join in the pitting. The water is fine. The more the merrier. You can start your own Sarah Palin thread if you want to. I’ll even stand up and agree with you that that was a pretty slimy rumor.