And because a whole bunch of people defended her idiocy. One member of this board kept talking about how incredibly smart she is, and how she’s an energy expert and a brilliant choice for McCain, so the only way anyone could be against her is if they’re haters.
I follow baseball and there was this guy on a board where I hang out. If a female poster said anything good about Grady Sizemore (who is considered something of a hottie) and/or said anything bad about one of the players who is not considered hottie material, this guy would say, “You’re only saying that because you’re so shallow.”
If we objected to that, it was proof to him that he was right.
It’s the same thing here. Any comment on Palin’s suitability for national office serves as proof that the person is being unfair. According to this logic, the only fair thing to say about Palin is that she’s super.
Just because she’s an idiot, doesn’t mean that Dems weren’t caught flat-footed. 'Cause they were. Fortunately, they were ambushed by a vicious wolf-killing ant. (see Monty Python, if confused) Next time, perhaps not so lucky.
Oh, I don’t doubt for a second that Palin is dead serious in her own regard. What I’m thinking is that there are people out there smart enough to hide behind the media orgy that is Palin, and that few people are really looking for them, as the majority sieze the low-hanging fruit.
Of course it can be… And it’s not my position that Palin is deliberate. Only that others may be making hay whilst everyone’s diverted.
No offense taken. No, I don’t normally obsess about politics, but I do read the political section fairly regularly. It’s usually full of salacious crap about people whom don’t much matter, or by more salacious crap about people whom ought to be holding themselves above the fray.
I knew about Jindal - Never believed he was viable as a potential candidate. Huntsman was a smart move on Obama’s part - Both in getting a good ambasador, and in undermining a potential foe. Sanford and Ensign never impressed me all that much. Pawlenty? Dunno. Romeny? Real potential there, and I hear damned little about him these days. What’s he up to? I bet a lot of the resources wasted on Palin could be turned to better purpose aimed at Romney, and people like him. Who else? The press, by-and-large, isn’t exactly beating the bushes looking for other potentials.
Hmmm. Maybe it’s because I find it incredibly tawdry and sad that so much effort has been thrown down a rathole demonizing and laughing at a woman who should already long ago become a footnote. I know the press needs to make money, and I know it’s fun kicking a cripple - If you’re a sadistic bastard. I think the press* should be doing better things with their time.
I frankly don’t think the press have done a good enough job looking at, and for, potential GOP candidates. Oh, some few have, but the mass? Not so much, IMO. It shouldn’t take a specialist to be familiar with the guys hiding in the tall grass - The press should be cutting that grass, and showing us who else might be out there.
I’m laying my wager now (One six-pack virtual beer - your choice of brand) that there’s gonna be a strongly-performing ‘surprise’ candidate in 2012, and that the press could have seen him or her coming, if they’d bothered to look.
*And when I say “press” I mean bloggers, too.
Actually, that’s WHY we were caught flat-footed. We never guessed that McCain, a fellow we generally respected, even if we didn’t agree with, would choose such a MANIFEST MORON WITH MORE SKELETONS IN HER CLOSET THAN THE BURR OAK CEMETERY. We made the mistake to believe the Republicans were not as STUPID as they turned out to be.
See this is where I really disagree with you. It’s much too early for most people to be looking for candidates for 2012. The right people are talking and thinking about it. Most people - not so much. There’s more than enough to report on that’s more pressing.
I’ll take that bet. It’s certainly not impossible. But I don`t think anyone is out there.
No, your problem is that whenever a Republican is accused of something, anything, your response is to find a Democrat who did something similar. If the Democrat wasn’t roasted by us liberals for that, then that somehow makes what the Republican did just hunky-dory.
You don’t address the issue, you just attack others for daring to hold the Republican accountable for his actions. You accuse others of blind partisanship, but ignore it when you, yourself, do it. If you’d bothered to read MY post, you might’ve realized that was what I was saying.
Close. Rather than making the Pubbie’s actions hunky-dory, it simply means that we aren’t permitted to make a federal case out of it unless we also made a federal case out of the Democrat doing it.
To which I say: pffft. If Mr. Regards wishes to excoriate a Dem for the similar incident, he’s free to do so. Preferably at the time that it actually happened. If he wishes to accuse anybody of double standards/hypocrisy, it would be a good strategy for him to make note of the liberals defending the Dem he excoriated. If he doesn’t find that leg- and spadework worth his time, he can pound sand now, AFAIAC.
OK, here’s my first direct accusation: you didn’t answer my question. You posted an attack on me instead of answering what I asked.
The last time I took the time to compile five or six links demonstrating a particular poster’s egregious wrongs, the general response was, “Hey, get a life. Don’t you have anything better to do than compile lists of grievances?”
No, I did answer your question. You asked whether you could accuse others of blind partisanship. I answered that no, you can’t because in my experience you don’t make direct accusations.
Jindal is a very interesting minority candidate because he doesn’t have the support of his own minority. Indian-Americans are among the most Democratic minority group after African-Americans and Jews; we voted 4 to 1 for Kerry over Bush, for example.
Moreover, Jindal is a Catholic convert, and took a Anglicized nickname, which makes him suspect to a lot of Indians (myself included, as I’ve discussed here before).
Since Indian-American support is hardly going to make or break his election hopes, their support isn’t that important in terms of votes, but given the relative affluence (and, therefore, influence) of Indian Americans, he’ll have to do something to court them - most likely buck his party on Middle Eastern/Pakistan policy.
Isn’t it also more common for children with Downs Syndrome to be born to older woman? So I would think Sarah would be more likely to have a Downs child than Bristol.
Yes, but it’s not as though younger women can’t have Down’s children. It’s just less likely. Same holds true for almost any birth defect, in fact; AFAIK, there are no risks that decrease with the age of the mother.
I know – I’m just saying that’s just one argument that Trig is more likely to be Sarah’s son. (I, for one, think the rumors that he’s not are nonsense)
I don’t know; I’m not a doctor. I can say that it sounds understandable to want to get to YOUR doctor, who you trust. I don’t recall seeing anything from a licensed physician saying that it’s completely unreasonable.