It really is hard to know where to begin when responding to such tortured reasoning. First, Williams asked Gov. Palin who else she would characterize as a terrorist in the same vein as Ayers. Before her response, he suggested some possibilities: a) abortion clinic bombers and b) Molotov cocktail-throwing political protestors. (Just as an aside, I felt this was a rare instance of a media rep being scrupulously fair. Those who sanction murder in the name of the pro-life cause are tiny in number, but they're invariably right-wing lunatics. And whether we're talking the '68 Dem convention in Chicago, the riots in Watts or whatever, mob violence has, for many decades, been solely confined to the radical left. So the interviewer made no attempt to stack the deck.)
Secondly, it is true that she did not specifically condemn Eric Rudolph and his fellow-travelers in her response. You failed to note, though, that she also did not go off on some diatribe about attacks on senior citizens by protestors at the Republican convention in Minneapolis. You did, however, thoughtfully provide the money quote (which you were obviously unable to comprehend): "I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would...seek to destroy innocent Americans." Rather than opting for specifically repeating a) or b), she chose to give a much more inclusive answer: c) ALL OF THE ABOVE.
Mr. Moran, although I sometimes disagree with you, you have always seemed to me to be intelligent, sincere and (dare I say it?) patriotic. Many of the columns you're written for American Thinker have driven me to weird things like fist pumps. But now this. What's with the strawman of quoting off-the-ledge anti-abortion freaks? What possible bearing do their ravings have to do with her? Are we supposed to 'project'? To believe she secretly espouses their evil and destructive thoughts? Here's what I find to be the most revealing sentence in your blog, btw: "She should be condemned for this by those on the right who claim moral ascendency over the rest of us due to their religious beliefs." That's the crux of your objection, isn't it -- her strong religious faith? Well, it's a poor argument, Mr. Moran. Mike Huckabee does not understand the concept of separating church and state. All evidence indicates that Sarah Palin does. You need to chill. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I hate to think what America would be like without those who are!
Of all the objectionable things about this post, by far the most offensive is the title. I'm a lot older than you. I do not claim to be wiser, but allow me to share a few of Life's lessons that I've learned:
** Moral cowards do not willingly choose to give birth to Down Syndrome babies.
** Moral cowards do not usually raise sons who join the military.
** Moral cowards worry more about negative publicity and possible ethics
hearings than protecting their 11-year-old nephew from abuse.
** Moral cowards do not face a rabid press corps day after day, deflecting
lies and slander with smiles and honest answers -- and the occasional wink.
Sen. Obama is a disciple of at least 3 known Marxists, not to mention, the son of 2 others. Sen. Obama's inner-circle of advisors is so anti-Semitic I'm damn glad I'm not a Jew. Sen. Obama is ACORN's proudest pupil. Sen. Obama's website has deactivated all security controls so that millions and millions of dollars could be contributed to his campaign illegally. Sen. Obama was the second-biggest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hush money. (But, of course, only because he had just been in the Senate 3 years, and the #1 guy had been there for 20.) Well, I could go on and on. But what I really want to know is how you (and Colin Powell, and Peggy Noonan, and Ken Adelman, and Kathryn Whatsherface) can DARE to question Sarah Palin's integrity? Don't you feel even the tiniest twinge of conscience???
When confronted with a different viewpoint, most people say, "Wrong!" Only a journalist would have the (fake) balls to holler, "IMMORAL!"Comment Posted By highcotton On 25.10.2008 @ 21:03
A fine piece of political analysis imo, Rick. In fact, you've really been on a roll lately with some excellent posts at AT and PJM. So I definitely don't mean to nitpick, but I would argue one small point with you -- selecting Bredesen would NOT move Tennessee into the Democrat column.
Phil Bredesen is a smart, hard-working guy with good leadership skills who's managed to stay clear of political cesspools for the most part. When it came time to pull the lever, I (and most other thinking Tennesseans) opted for the serious dude with a (D) beside his name instead of the dolt with an (R) beside his. In the end, you have to go with the best man, even if it's in spite of his politics instead of because of them. He's been a good governor, so I think we made the right decision. But to suggest that he could pull off a seismic shift in this state by being put on the national ticket is silly. Hey, we didn't vote for that obscene "favorite son" Al Gore, did we? True, it would be closer, since Bredesen is not a total sleazebag. But, with the exception of Memphis, we're red no matter what.
Of course, as you point out, it's a moot point. Phil Bredesen is waaay too smart to get his name linked inextricably with that of a Marxist....Comment Posted By highcotton On 8.07.2008 @ 19:29
I will admit that I, too, came here to see how you were dealing with the subject that your brother wrote about in such a supercilious and ignorant way.
One question is being asked over and over on his blog, Rick: What would you do if your son were wrongly accused of rape? First, it's a very fair question. Second, we all know he would do exactly what the parents of the Duke 3 did. He'd lawyer up with the best money could buy, right? Do you deny that? And do you think your nephew should be skewered in the press because his daddy could afford a decent attorney?
Omigosh, it's the most hypocritical argument I've ever heard in my entire life! (Yeah, yeah, your brother can take care of himself. Well, I'm not asking you to 'take care' of him. I'm asking you to think seriously about whether or not you can support such a weak defense.)
Several commenters mentioned Lawrence -- and the astronomical tuition at same. Sure made him look like a...mule. And one guy challenged him to swear he'd never watched a stripper while he was there. There was just something about that comment that made me think the commenter might have a little 'inside info'. Nah. You guys are both perfect. I'm sure it was my imagination.Comment Posted By highcotton On 13.04.2007 @ 23:53
Pages (1) :