I still think she will self-destruct soon. It will be interesting to see who will be left in her wake as the new frontrunner.
The Right is no different. One of the biggest problems in American politics today is that every single scrap of a candidate's life has to be drug out into public and ripped to shreds. That's the main reason why you don't see anyone besides professional politicians running for office.
I disagree. I don't recall the last time the right went after someone's children so viciously. That's not even taking into consideration all the other petty bullshit like her wardrobe. Usually a politician's kids are off limits. I never heard a word about Obama's kids once. Once upon a time, I remember Limbaugh made a remark way back when he had that TV show about Chelsea Clinton being the Whitehouse dog and many on the right blasted the fuck out of him, and rightly so. God, liberals fucking disgust me.
Did I say the Right was any different? But for all their blather about "Women's Rights" and "Empowering Women" and "Changing the Tone in Washington" from the Left, they demonstrate that they are the biggest group of hypocrites on the planet. Look at how they went after Palin. They'll destroy Bachmann, and then whine and complain how mean-spirited and nasty the Right is.
For the Umpeenth Time, Rush NEVER SAID THAT. It was a mistake on his TV show, that I was actually watching that night. His engineer put up the wrong slide (one of Chelsea) while Rush was talking about dogs. Rush immediately apologized for it and did so again on his radio program the next day.
Really? Let me do some Googling and see what I can see. If so, I'm ashamed that I've bought into propoganda, but I'll try to do more research next time.
I'm not saying that it wasn't a mistake, but Limbaugh's show wasn't live. It was taped. As such, they could've reshot that segment.
No, but by not including them in your original statement, you certainly implied that the Right was somehow better. How so? The cracks about Palin's kids were flat out wrong (i.e. the whole business as to who's kid Trig was), but attacking Palin's record and political ability was perfectly reasonable. The Right certainly didn't hesitate to bash Obama over such things. Based on everything I've seen about Bachmann, she's unfit for political office. And the Right is no different about whining about how nasty and mean-spirited the other side is. Witness all the complaints about how Palin got "ambushed" by Katie Couric. (Seriously, if you can't handle Couric's questioning, you've got no business being elected dog catcher, much less VP.)
That's true. You don't need to be anyone's child in particular. They're perfectly willing to do it to a 12-year-old in his own right.
Well, I probably hold the most ancient classical conservative views on this board and that woman and Romney scare the hell out of even ME. They'll merely be more of the same. White conservative versions of Obama. Paul may be very libertarian, but I agree 100% with him that we need to get the fuck out of the mideast and concentrate our military efforts on OUR border!!! And he's also right about something he said in 2008. Why should we believe these establishment people? They've been wrong about everything they've said! The oil will pay for the wars?!?! As if! He's the only one who seems to get it. We need to mind our own fucking business and worry about America first, the world "if there is time..."
The world only if they fuck with us. If they do, stomp them and be done with them, and let them rebuild their own damn country. Didn't want to get bombed into the Stone Age? Don't mess with the US.
Not to mention, it doesn't fit in with anything else Rush does. What other time has be shown his audience a picture of an animal owned by a Democratic politician just for the sake of showing it? Regardless, that's nothing compared to this joke John McCain allegedly told about Chelsea Clinton.
Meanwhile, the attacks on Michele Bachmann's children are so vicious that I had to go look up her Wikipedia page to see if she even had any children.
Uhh never because he doesn't have a TV show anymore. Kinda of hard to show a picture over radio...... He has talked about their animals though. And the day of the TV episode he was talking about the Clinton's dog at the time. It wasn't shown just for the sake of showing it.
Generalising about what "the right" or "the left" to is a large part of the problem. They are not monolithic entities.
Here's the first one: Stephanopoulos: Finally one—one final question. I think one of the most impressive things that people find in your background is the fact that you and your husband have helped raise 23 foster children and I know you want to shield them but are they prepared and are you prepared for the loss of privacy that comes with the president campaign? And is that something you are concerned about for them? Why would the foster kids privacy need to be violated? Many of them aren't even living with Bachmann right now. And of course lest we not forget that Obama and his crew demolished his Senate opponent by getting a judge to open a sealed divorce agreement. And then one only has to look at how the media went after Palin's kids during the campaign. You really need evidence?
I haven't read the whole thread, I just looked a the first few posts. Has anyone else compared this picture to the Howard Dean Scream? To me it looks as if it has the potential to be used as a campaign-killing embarrassment by the media.
This is your definition of an "attack"? Jeez, it's like you guys speak a language that uses English words but is only tangentially related to the language spoken by over 300 million people who don't inhabit the Red Room. When do you imagine the media in this country first began focusing on candidates' children? Take your time.
No dummy. That is him basically signaling her that her foster kids will be gotten after. And for the other question: Sarah Palin is when they started going after children.
To be fair, she's an attractive woman. Great bone structure, minimal crows' feet for a 55-year-old, and there are 30-somethings who'd kill for that jawline. The corn dog photo suggests she might have gone for botox, but the Newsweek cover says she hadn't yet when it was taken. Really, it's just the crazed look in her eyes that's offputting. And that could just as easily be some "helpful" member of her staff saying "Honey, you've got a little droop going on in the upper eyelids. It makes you look sleepy and unfocused. Try widening your eyes just before they snap the photo and you'll look great" as anything else.