Exactly. The reporter suggested that Todd Palin committed incest with his daughters. But first you deny that this was suggested, and now you admit that it was suggested. Well, which it it?
It doesn't matter that the reporter was playing the part of the fool. The fool was overly exaggerated. What better way to get every one to let this go by without a challenge? Well, it was the cheapest of a cheap shots, and I am not going to let this go by without a challenge.
“Well, it was the cheapest of a cheap shots, and I am not going to let this go by without a challenge.”
1.) What is the “challenge” you’re announcing?
2.)Do you understand that the skit was satirizing the NYTIMES feeding frenzy over the Palin selection and nomination?
3.) Do you understand that the skit was satirizing the parochialism of some Manhattanites?
“Well, it was the cheapest of a cheap shots, and I am not going to let this go by without a challenge.”
1.) What is the “challenge” you’re announcing?
2.)Do you understand that the skit was satirizing the NYTIMES feeding frenzy over the Palin selection and nomination?
3.) Do you understand that the skit was satirizing the parochialism of some Manhattanites?
You didn’t see it either. Right?
The reporter asked about incest in order to portray him as a fool. If they used an attack that wasn't patently absurd and vicious, it wouldn't portray the NY Times in such a bad light. Ironic huh?