Alec Baldwin and the network apologized amid a furor and that episode of Conan was never re-aired.
I am also going to go out on a limb here and guess that a greater proportion of liberals are embarrassed by Alec Baldwin than conservatives are by Sarah Palin, but I admit, this is highly subjective.
Call me when the Democrats run him as their Vice Presidential candidate.
How about the “Snipers Wanted” graphic over President Bush’s face?
Or the newspaper ad taken out by Florida Democrats about Donald Rumsfeld: “And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.”
Ah, nice tu quoque argument. Some think tank pundit that most democrats have never heard of has a map with targets on it, and Alec Baldwin engaging in some satire on Conan O’Brien.
So again, how does this excuse some of the more prominent folks in the conservative movement from using flaming rhetoric?
Call me when the Democrats start electing them to office, running them for Vice President, or when they take over the radio and cable airwaves.
Goalposts, moved.
So what’s the new rule? It only counts if said by a candidate for Senate or VP?
That seems to undercut the general theme above, that it’s the whole climate of hate-filled rhetoric that’s the problem. Now the problem is only when the rhetoric comes from a Senate or VP candidate?
Seriously, Bricker you couldn’t have thought the Alec Baldwin thing was real.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
It’s not tu quoque.
Oh, fuck me. Yes, it was disgusting. But let me know when this guy runs for office, and liberals start buying his books by the truckload and labeling him a great political thinker.
It’s more like you’re trying to lower the bar. You’re capable of recognizing a false equivalency when you see one. Who do you think you’re bullshitting here?
Tu quoque is valid for pointing out hypocrisy. If you say both are bad, or both OK, then it’s not a valid argument. But asking why one is OK and not the other is a good question, unless it’s a false equivalence.
It’s not equivalent enough to be an effective tu quoque. It’s basically just grasping at straws.
No, they don’t have to run for Senate or VP. Just when they start holding these assholes in high regard as political thinkers.
Please be so kind as to spell out your point. It’s not obvious. It sounds rather like you are saying that implied violence by Rebublicans is perfectly OK because Democrats do it too. Me, I think it’s wrong when done by either side, but maybe I’m not getting all the subtle nuances of what you are trying to argue here.
You can’t bullshit a bullshitter.
That’s a reprehensible thing to say, and Palin, Angle, and others are are also reprehensible.
The Alec Baldwin thing was a sketch piece on Conan. It was intended as self-parody. It’s a completely disengenuous cite.
These were disgusting things to say and do, and Palin, Angle, and others are also disgusting in their statements and actions.
Fine, drop Alec Baldwin.
Although why he gets a pass while Hannity or Limbaugh doesn’t isn’t clear. But OK, I withdraw the Baldwin quote.
How about replacing it with Dan Savage’s efforts to infect Gary Bauer with the flu? Or Bill Maher’s arguing that Cheney’s death would save the lives of many other people?
And do you seriously think that there aren’t more out there?
Let’s see, an actor who never runs for office makes a reprehensible statement and later apologizes for it, as does the network that aired it. Actual Republican officeholders and office seekers repeatedly make remarks that are reasonably construed as inciting violence and never utter a word of apology. Only the biggest partisan dickhead would find equivalence there.