Posted on 06/07/2006 4:51:37 PM PDT by new yorker 77
but 100% correct.
The double-standard is intriguing considering that the Jersey Girls, Dixie Chicks, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon and JFKerry (yeah, he belongs) have been saying 'classless' and outrageous things about President Bush.
Look, Davis, if the truth of my statement ("Because, as members of the Church of Liberalism you are supposed to venerate the Saint Jerseys." ) didn't get through to you, then you haven't understood any of what is going on in this argument.
What does the Bible say about widows abandoning their infant children for the spotlight of attention from those who would exploit their grief.
KJ, I diagree wholeheartedly with you that Ann screwed up. You will find no evidence of that tomorrow, the next day, or in November.
Well, if you read Ann's work much, she attacks not only the ideas, but also the individuals, very harshly.
If you are telling me the comments were not necessary, I'd agree. Nothing Ann or 95% of other pundits say is necessary. She is trying to sell books. And being outrageous is her schtick and has been since day one. Her reply to Hillary today was classic. And downright mean.
drive-by annointment!
Taht has to be it. Chrissy Matthews and Larry King said so.
They don't. The point is that Coulter's comments were a reflection of how the widows abused their positions, as did the Comptroller, and the 'posing for Playboy' statement means that they would just continue to do so for furthering an agenda, be it financial or political. She is really just following the old Limbaugh adage of demonstrating the absurd by BEING absurd. Quite effective if you ask me.
Hey I got an idea, don't buy her book, and, oh yeah, also, don't ever, ever make a mistake yourself.
Politics is a bit different than defending your home in family. In defending my family, I'd shoot an intruder, and if anyone tries to attack my wife, I hope she'd use that .38 that I bought for her after we moved to this neighborhood. However, if I go into the political area, I'm not going to go looking to shoot my opponent because they're opposing me. There should be and is a different standard for women. What Ann Richards said at the 1988 Democratic convention was crass and in bad taste, but to be honest, the reason I had a problem with it was because Ann Richards had said it as opposed to say, Andrew Richards.
That is how I was raised, my mother went to finishing school and so did my wife. My father would cuss in the house often, but I never heard my mother use any swear word stronger than hell or damn. I came to expect certain things out of women, and for personal conduct, I've set different standards for my daughters than I have for my son's, and my wife has agreed with me on this.
I have no problem with women entering politics, but to be honest, when I'm voting for a woman, I vote for her assuming she will not make waves, she will try to work things out, I vote for her based on how one expects a woman to act. When women start acting as men would then I have a problem, because not only do they attack as a man would, but you as a man can't fight back because you have to talk a certain way to women.
Sign of the times, perhaps. Unless there are pics of her jumping the shark. ;^)
Those women did nothing but use their husband's deaths in a partisan way to attack republicans.
THEY are the ones who are classless, and maybe even a little sick. They deserve no respect at all and should receive none. What they did makes them as much of a political target as anyone else in politics with an agenda to promote.
They were really nothing more than props for the left media anyway. Just take a step back and look at it all, and some questions come to mind.
How did they meet each other? Is it an accident that these women met up and all happen to believe the same thing and go to the media while most others were ignored?
How did they manage to get in the press so heavily? If a small group of other widows wanted to get together and speak out against Clinton for 8 years of NO ACTION against terrorists, would they get the same press coverage?
They are nothing but tools for a media show to go after Bush and republicans, and they are playing it to the max. To hell with them all, they are fodder.
Only if the msm says it is. Ann says it is not fair and she won't play by their rules and here we are saying; oh yes you will. What gives?
And Ann is using it to sell her book!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.