Thursday, September 11, 2008

They're a scummy rag, but . . .

5 Comments:

Anonymous Tom McC said...

John, how is this relevant? All parents have some issues with their kids, it doesn't seem to mean that they're more or less capable people. I absolutely agree that there are plenty of substantive reasons to believe that this vacuous and at the same time deceitful person is not to be trusted even with the "warm bucket of spit" that is the vice-presidency, much much less the presidency. But I don't think her son's drug problems are relevant. We should get on her case for her lies about the bridge to nowhere, the library book-banning questions, the trooper, and plenty of other areas in which she has been less than forthcoming and at times downright dishonest.

September 13, 2008 8:05 PM  
Blogger Jack McCullough said...

I would ordinarily agree, except that she (or McBush) is the one that uses two selling points for her qualifications to be president:
1. Her family;
2. Lies about her record.

I agree that this is a lower order of importance than exposing her lies (and I've been spending a lot more time here doing that), but it seems to me that it is fundamentally dishonest for her to say the should be vice president because of her family, while also saying that her family is off limits.

September 14, 2008 9:22 PM  
Blogger Jack McCullough said...

As you may know, Mickey Kaus was pounding on the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story for months before the legitimate news media picked it up, and his rationale was pretty much the same: Edwards had made his family story a big part of his electoral appeal. Now, as an early Edwards supporter, I have to say that I'm glad he didn't get the nomination.

Or, as Byron York observed, what do you suppose the reaction would have been if Obama had a 17-year-old daughter pregnant by a tough-looking black guy who had a Facebook page where he referred to himself as a "fucking hardass"? Something tells me the religious right would not be giving her the tongue bath they're giving Palin.

September 15, 2008 7:05 AM  
Anonymous tom McC said...

Well, although she does seem to exploit the "hockey mom" thing, I just don't think it's fair to hold up her daughter's behavior as a disqualifying factor. And I don't think the Edwards thing is a good parallel, because that had to do with his own behavior, not that of his adolescent child and her redneck boyfriend. Mickey Kaus may have done some kind of public service with his harping on the Edwards thing, but I find his main issues make him prettyy repellent. He as much as admitted that he thought an Obama presidency would be good mainlly because it would cause an anti-immigration backlash. I do agree that the right would not be kind if Obama's kid got knocked up, but even though politics ain't beanbag, I just think it's better to concentrate on her substantive weakness on the issues as well as on her remarkable and easily substantiated mendacity.

September 15, 2008 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Tom McC said...

I think it's relatively fair to question the shotgun wedding of her daughter, but no respectable candidate could reasonably bring the subject up.

September 15, 2008 10:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home