Sarah Palin: Bill Kristol's Take
Clay
Friday, July 03, 2009, 5:06pm
About Palin: A Contrarian Take
If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced
today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one.
After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship.
Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the
world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the
issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in
Alaska. I suppose she'll take a hit for leaving the governorship early
- but how much of one? She's probably accomplished most of what she
was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico
lieutenant governor in charge.
And haven't conservatives been lamenting the lack of a national
leader? Well, now she'll try to be that. She may not succeed.
Everything rests on her talents, and on her performance. She'll be
under intense and hostile scrutiny, and she'll have to perform well.
All in all, it's going to be a high-wire act. The odds are against her
pulling it off. But I wouldn't bet against it.
-------------------------
-C-
Amanda Williams
news:a6hu45p5d34n6ot9m...@4ax.com:
rotflmao.....
Hey ClayDOH!!! you need to stick to babbling about Cable show ratings....
As for Kristol... <snicker>... that neo-con jackass has turned being 100%
wrong on everything into an art form which, of course, makes him the
perfect GOP spokes-thingy
>
>
--
AW
<small but dangerous>
Clay
...
> Clay <c...@thinktank.nyc> allegedly said
>
>
> > Bill Kristol
> > Friday, July 03, 2009, 5:06pm
> > About Palin: A Contrarian Take
>
> > If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced
> > today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one.
>
> > After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship.
> > Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the
> > world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the
> > issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in
> > Alaska. I suppose she'll take a hit for leaving the governorship early
> > - but how much of one? She's probably accomplished most of what she
> > was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico
> > lieutenant governor in charge.
>
> > And haven't conservatives been lamenting the lack of a national
> > leader? Well, now she'll try to be that. She may not succeed.
> > Everything rests on her talents, and on her performance. She'll be
> > under intense and hostile scrutiny, and she'll have to perform well.
>
> > All in all, it's going to be a high-wire act. The odds are against her
> > pulling it off. But I wouldn't bet against it.
>
> > -------------------------
>
> > -C-
>
> rotflmao.....
>
> Hey ClayDOH!!! you need to stick to babbling about Cable show ratings....
Heya Amy... LTNS, kid. When did you get out? How long do you think
you'll last on the outside this time?
*snicker*
> As for Kristol... <snicker>... that neo-con jackass has turned being 100%
> wrong on everything into an art form which, of course, makes him the
> perfect GOP spokes-thingy
This is true, Amy... Kristol's correct/wrong record is horrendous. I
posted his comments b/c I know he is one of the first guys who pushed
for Palin... which continues to be a huge mistake.
I just posted my views on the whole "Sarah Palin Quitting" "thingy".
Have someone read it to ya, kid.
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Padmar Mushkin
Um, if the odd are against something, isn't that exactly the time *to*
bet against it? Yes I know, picky picky. But it's a pet peeve of mine
when people use cliched phrases without thinking about what they're
saying.
Amanda Williams
news:b4184c93-908d-4369...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
I would have to find someone to translate from "grunt" and they would risk
blindness and mental retardation both of which have been reported from
those unfortunate enough to read your "posts"
<snicker>
KalElFan
news:f6bb6587-fc00-4fe5...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[snippage]
>>> Bill Kristol
>>> Friday, July 03, 2009, 5:06pm
>>> About Palin: A Contrarian Take
>>>
>>> If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced
>>> today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one.
Kristol is right to portray it as risky because it plays into her being
underestimated. You don't want to say this is brilliant because
she's freed up now to do whatever she wants, and is invulnerable
politically until if and when she runs again, and that the reaction from
the loons has been priceless and illustrates that. I predicted twice
in other discussions the last week or two that she would do exactly
what she did, except early next year. Instead she took advantage
of the loons and an even better opportunity to do it now.
I think it's no better than 50-50 that she runs in 2012, but she
doesn't have to decide that officially for a couple of years. She
could wait until 2020 and still only be 56. If she doesn't run in
2012 she can either not take sides and just support whoever the
nominee is, or she can have enormous influence because of her
popularity among the base. The Pew Research poll a few weeks
back had her at 73% favorable among Republicans (the same
number for both men and women), and 80% among Republicans
describing themselves as Conservative. Romney was at 57%
in second place.
The dynamic is such that if Palin decides not to run, Romney
will be the heavy favorite. But as I said yesterday in another
post:
"Giuliani, Huckabee and Palin are all authentic. Romney
is the Max Headroom of the party, as inauthentic as it
gets and more slippery than his hair..."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/3a585bd080acb0f6
If Palin supported another candidate, Giuliani would be the
one I'd like to see her support if he decides to run in 2012,
he could win.
Palin also signed her book deal in May, no details released but
the advance would have been well into seven figures and she'll
end up making eight figures in royalties. She doesn't even need
to make speeches or host a weekly TV show or anything else,
but she can make some money and build up her own financial
war chest doing those things too if she wants to. Give some to
charity and spend time on some good causes as she did on the
New York trip. Maybe endorse a new umbrella group or just
a new group that will speak up for women who don't have to
pass a left wing litmus test to get more than a token statement
of support.
>>> After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship.
>>> Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the
>>> world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the
>>> issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in
>>> Alaska.
She's also leaving after going 15 for 15 getting a series of frivolous
ethics complaints against her refuted and dismissed. One involved
the loon complainant objecting to her holding a fish, and another
her wearing a jacket with a logo. Even the one some people cite
as getting some traction gets misreported, even on FOX in at least
one case yesterday. Her children accompanied her on some of
the trips she took as Governor, but that was the practice followed
by the two previous governors, was de facto allowed under the
policies, and so there was nothing against it even ethically let alone
legally. Nevertheless she reimbursed the state.
That a few loons were making a mockery of the complaint process,
costing the state and Governor's staff time and money responding,
and otherwise making a circus of what was going to be an 18-month
lame duck term anyway, only portended how much more insane it
was going to get for Alaska. Early next year it would have reached
a crescendo as Palin's book comes out and she did a tour for that,
or started campaigning for others in the lower 48 as the year
progressed and so on.
Obama also started running for President virtually full time *LESS*
than halfway into his first term, and left the seat to chaos that only
further brought his state into disrepute. Palin is leaving Alaska in
the capable hands of her Lt. Gov. (Sean Parnell), a Republican
as well and he did several interviews at the time Palin was chosen
by McCain as his running mate. Parnell seemed very happy for
and supportive of Palin at the time. So the dynamic among Palin's
supporters, both nationally and in Alaska, is to not see this as
giving up or shrinking from a fight or abandoning Alaska at all.
She could have run out her term and and gone 50 for 50 in
dismissing whatever other frivolous ethics complaints the loons
dreamed up. But it was a few loons on the left, and a few of
the anonymous weasel Republicans, and the media and so on
that were intent on making that a distracting, expensive circus.
So she left now instead.
> Just keep your responses in rec.arts.tv, and you can say
> anything and he won't see it--the ClayBot is not programmed
> to edit his newsgroups, and misses everything not addressed
> to the LimbaughLoveLine.
Clay is irrelevant and his thinking, such as it is, is marginal even
among the center-right and right. But your thinking makes him
look smart. Perpetuating a thread like this only in rec.arts.tv,
and trimming all the other groups where it's even more clearly
on topic, just because you can't help yourself with your anti-
Clay crusade, is bizarre. When you posted recipes it was
bizarre. If you want to respond substantively not to Clay but
to the topic, do that. If you want to ignore Clay and every
thread he starts, do that. But throwing a netkkkop tantrum
like clockwork just makes for more pointless noise.
Mike C.
> Bill Kristol
> Friday, July 03, 2009, 5:06pm
> About Palin: A Contrarian Take
>
> If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced
> today?
Because after all of her blather about Obama voting "Present", now she can't
even be bothered to do that. That's why.
KalElFan
news:t1ou45tcr4pjnd30i...@4ax.com...
>> Bill Kristol
>> Friday, July 03, 2009, 5:06pm
>> About Palin: A Contrarian Take...
>> All in all, it's going to be a high-wire act. The odds are against her
>> pulling it off. But I wouldn't bet against it.
>
> Um, if the odd are against something, isn't that exactly the time *to*
> bet against it? Yes I know, picky picky. But it's a pet peeve of mine
> when people use cliched phrases without thinking about what they're
> saying.
You must not be familiar with the gambling metaphor here. First of
all, the bet Kristol alludes to is (paraphrasing) whether Sarah Palin
can become the leading national spokesperson for the party now,
filling a void that many Republicans have noted and lamented. A
few of them noting and lamenting it may now express horror at the
prospect that Sarah Palin is freed up to take on that role, but with
Pew showing her approval at 73% among both Republican men
and women, 80% among Republicans describing themselves as
Conservative, and even higher than that in another core part of the
base, those expressing horror or leaking made up b.s. to discredit
Palin are very marginal within the party. Most of them feel so sure
of themselves that they choose to remain anonymous weasels.
She's also got 45% favorables nationally (44% unfavorable, 11%
unsure) in the Pew poll. That 45% also led the poll, and is far
ahead of the Republican brand nationally.
But Kristol, wanting to lower expectations, concedes the odds are
against her. So let's say 3-1 that she achieves the goal of becoming
the leading spokesperson for (i) the party and/or (ii) political opposition
to Obama's policies when they collide with what the center and center-
right and even some Democrats support. On the other side, perhaps
1-1 or even money that she fails to achieve that, i.e., that somebody
else emerges or there's a continued void until the 2012 Republican
nominee is chosen.
What Kristol is saying is that even though he believes the odds are
rightly higher that she succeeds, he wouldn't make the even money
bet that she fails. Neither would I. One would have to have some
quantitative way to determine success or failure. It might be based
on an objective analysis of media reports and online buzz and public
statements and speeches and so on, between now and two years
from now perhaps. But given even the liberal mainstream media's
inability to ignore her to date and even eight months after she went
back to Alaska, it'll be priceless to watch them squirm trying to
figure out what to do with her now that she's going national full time.
It's a lose-lose proposition for them, but on the Republican side,
which is what Kristol is talking about, she has strong support and
people will be genuinely interested in what she does and has to say.
In any case there's nothing at all wrong with the metaphor, it was
simply that Kristol and others would inherently understand it and
you didn't.
Ashton Crusher
Palin will never be a national leader. At best she will continue to
attract the adoration of the 25% of the repugs who suffer from
terminal dementia. She continues to be the best thing that ever
happened to the democrats. People are going to be talking for years
about how John McCains choice of Palin doomed the repugs to at least a
decade of inconsequentiality.
Al Smith
Except, Palin's resignation has nothing whatsoever to do with
running for president.
-Al-
Billy Colburn
This is not about left-wing loons, weasel Republicans, Barack Obama or
left-wing MSM. This is about Sarah Palin's appalling ignorance, her
graft as a public official and her self-destructive behavior. Any
attempt to put a positive spin on this debacle for her future or for the
future of the Republican Party is laughable.
You have a very active imagination but your comments on Palin have been
no more accurate than were your predictions of impending doom for
Letterman.
--
Billy Colburn
Not Sure
You can tell how hysterical the left continues to be over Palin
proving beyond all doubt that they hate conservative women as much (or
more) than they hate conservative blacks. Continue whining and
crying :)
Any
> attempt to put a positive spin on this debacle for her future or for the
> future of the Republican Party is laughable.
>
> You have a very active imagination but your comments on Palin have been
> no more accurate than were your predictions of impending doom for
> Letterman.
>
> --
> Billy Colburn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Al Smith
It's a sign of the sickness currently in the Republican Party that
Palin is not universally hooted off the stage every time she
appears. That any Republican can support her is laughable, and shows
what a sorry state the party has fallen into. And I write this as
someone whose sympathies are predominantly Republican ... or were,
until the horror that is George Bush became president.
-Al-
Billy Colburn
Another Palin apologist steps forward to prove the point...
--
Billy Colburn
Not Sure
No they aren't and they never were. Better luck next time, liar :)
> until the horror that is George Bush became president.
>
> -Al-- Hide quoted text -
KalElFan
news:2ul06q....@news.alt.net...
>> of support...
> This is not about left-wing loons, weasel Republicans, Barack
> Obama or left-wing MSM.
It's about all those things among others, and it'll continue to be
and it's very amusing. One poster wants the media to shun Palin
now, and that's hilarious. Neurons have been igniting in loony
minds everywhere the last couple of days, extending from Alaska
into the Lower 48. Look North out your window tonight Billy,
and you may catch a glimpse of the Aurora Loonealis.
What will the loons do? What *should* they do now? Shun?
Attack! Lie in wait? Discuss.
[snip more assertion from Billy the Loon culminating in...]
> ... your comments on Palin have been no
> more accurate than were your predictions of impending doom
> for Letterman.
You're a liar, Billy. A proven liar, multiple times now. You're
an embarrassment to even the loons, because you're so piss-
poor at even attempting a coherent argument, let alone making
a well supported one, and you think lying is a good substitute.
Redemption is always possible though! Try to do better, like
Dave said he would. (And hope Palin doesn't make a deal for
an 11:30 p.m. talk show on FOX. :-))
Billy Colburn
> "Billy Colburn" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2ul06q....@news.alt.net...
>> Obama or left-wing MSM.
>
> It's about all those things among others,
Only to those who wish to deflect attention away from Sarah Palin's
bizarre behavior and onto her numerous critics on both the right and the
left.
>> ... your comments on Palin have been no
>> more accurate than were your predictions of impending doom
>> for Letterman.
>
> You're a liar, Billy. A proven liar, multiple times now.
Proof?
Of course there is none. But if you say that enough times, maybe you can
convince yourself.
> You're
> an embarrassment to even the loons, because you're so piss-
> poor at even attempting a coherent argument, let alone making
> a well supported one, and you think lying is a good substitute.
>
Uh-huh. More childish personal attacks instead of facts. Oh the irony!
How's that "Fire David Letterman" thing going? lololol
--
Billy Colburn
Billy Colburn
> KalElFan wrote:
>> "Billy Colburn" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:2ul06q....@news.alt.net...
>>> This is not about left-wing loons, weasel Republicans, Barack
>>> Obama or left-wing MSM.
>>
>> It's about all those things among others,
>
> Only to those who wish to deflect attention away from Sarah Palin's
> bizarre behavior and onto her numerous critics on both the right and
> the left.
The following proof of Sarah Palin's appalling ignorance comes from her
recent statement that was also posted on her official website:
"Palin Announces No Second Term"
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php
The statement is full of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization
errors. The mistakes are so numerous that it would likely rate a D minus
if it were turned in by a ninth grader. This statement is not worthy of
any public official, much less a governor and former vice presidential
candidate.
Here are just a few examples:
"my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this instead of
progressing our state now"
"Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska"
"I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!?"
"we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops"
"*((Gotta put First Things First))*"
"In the words of General MacArthur said..."
--
Billy Colburn
z
>
> - Show quoted text -
the republicans went off the track quite a while ago, but by now it's
just impossible to ignore. lots of us started off with a conservative
bent but cannot in good conscience vote for gross stupidity and wilful
retreat from reality. we don't make as much noise about it as the
loudmouths who continually proclaim about how they used to be
"liberal" until they saw the light.
KalElFan
> Proof?
You've lied the last four posts in a row now. Two here and
two in the Letterman thread.
http://google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/c21dc44d8e2e187f
Actually two in that post, and before that:
http://google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/c21dc44d8e2e187f
[snip latest lie, and the previous post in this thread as well]
I've been on Usenet 13+ years now Billy. You're the most
consistent liar I've run across. You're four for four, and you're
Billy The Lying Loon.
What you should do is practice what you whine about others
not practicing, when in fact they do and it's you that have
nothing but serial assertion. More facts and arguments and
support for what you write, and less lying about what other
people have said.
You try in the next post but make a fool of yourself.
KalElFan
> "Palin Announces No Second Term"
> http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php
It's actually the statement she gave to the press, and there's nothing
wrong with it. Virtually all the criticisms raised about it are people
not even bothering to read or listen to the speech, and the rest are
the loons and people who don't like her style and so on. One of
the biggest fallacies is she doesn't say why she's leaving. It's very
clear in the speech and it's been explained by others who got it.
It's not her fault that people are feigning ignorance or are genuinely
ignorant about it.
She had decided not to run again. Rather than serve out the rest
of her term as a lame duck, and continue wasting the time and
resources of the State, the Governor's office, herself and her
family addressing ongoing frivolous claims and other distractions,
she decided to turn over the reins now to her fellow Republican
Lt. Governor.
The pundits feigning ignorance may have wished she'd said she
was running in 2012. They may wish that was the reason she
gave, that she was devoting herself fully to preparing for a run
in 2012. Their wish is not a valid criticism of her speech or her
stated reason, which is clear. I doubt she's made a decision yet,
though she may be leaning one way or the other. My guess is
she's most likely not running in 2012, but she has no obligation
to tell anyone which way she's leaning either.
The pundits saying she's a quitter and abandoning her state and
couldn't successfully run for President because of this decision
are also unable to effectively defend their position. Palin has
been pulled back onto the national stage by the full court press
as she put it. So she's responding to it. It does not follow that
should she ever decide to run for President she would make the
same decision to turn over the reins to her Vice President after
she fought off 15 of 15 frivolous ethics complaints. The "higher
calling" is the National Stage, and she's on her way. If she
were to run for President and win, she would not be calling a
press conference to announce her return to a Lower Calling
as Governor or Mayor. Duh.
This is not rocket science. If you don't understand it, ask
Obama to explain it to you. He got elected Senator after he
gave a nice speech at the last convention. Then he started
running for President and left his Senate seat to chaos when
he won. We heard no boo-hoos about that and Obama
abandoning his state, because he was the Savior and had
to move on to His Higher Calling of leading the Loons to
Socialist Salvation, right?
Anyway back to the Palin speech. It's fine. You found
a typo at the end. The rest you cite aren't even clearly
valid as nitpicks and represent literally a small fraction of
1% of 2,500+ words.
> "my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this
> instead of progressing our state now"
I'm guessing you don't like "progressing". But it's a verb and it fits.
> "Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska"
Don't like the capital O? Tough. It arguably fits as both a
geographic reference and as a title in the Inside Baseball sense.
> "I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!?"
I see no question mark there now so maybe it was a typo if
that was your nitpick. If it wasn't I see nothing wrong.
> "we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops"
ALL for emphasis and the Capital T reflects her high regard
for the Troops and is akin to usage in Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marines and so on. It's capitalized later as well. Context
and personal style and intent allows for things like this and
as a transcript of her speech it's fine.
> "*((Gotta put First Things First))*"
A speech marker of sorts, as she gets into the last part of it.
"Gotta" is informal but you betcha it's appropriate especially
in a speech from Palin.
> "In the words of General MacArthur said..."
That's your best one, you're only one really, and it's a rather
obvious typo on the face of it. Or it may be a strict transcript
and she tripped over it right at the end as she was delivering
it. Either way maybe they'll correct it, dropping the "said" or
replacing "In the words of" with "As". I've seen worse typos
than this one on web pages and in published books. It also
completely escapes you that even the one clear typo you
found may well have been some staffer's not Palin's.
So one typo and you think it proves Palin's or anyone else's
"appalling ignorance". Add Scum to your Lying Loon title,
Billy, and keep up the good work. You're a credit to the
Loon Nation.
KalElFan
news:7bdjbtF...@mid.individual.net...
> "Billy Colburn" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2uofqr....@news.alt.net...
>
>> Proof?
>
> You've lied the last four posts in a row now. Two here and
> two in the Letterman thread.
>
> http://google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/c21dc44d8e2e187f
>
> Actually two in that post, and before that:
>
> http://google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/c21dc44d8e2e187f
Duplicate URL there and the first one should be:
Lubow
People are going to be talking for years
> about how John McCains choice of Palin doomed the repugs to at least a
> decade of inconsequentiality.
Great word! INCONSEQUENTIALITY. The GOP has been reduced from a
national political party to a regional pressure group.
Clay
...
Hmmm... it took Democrats 12 years to get back Congress and then 8 for
all three.
If it takes Republicans that long... that will be the standard. And
that should be something that Conservatives can live with.
-C-
Billy Colburn
> "Billy Colburn" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2uoig2....@news.alt.net...
>
>> "Palin Announces No Second Term"
>> http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php
>
> It's actually the statement she gave to the press, and there's nothing
> wrong with it.
There is plenty wrong with it and if you really can't see that, then you
are just as ignorant as Palin.
> So one typo
And you have the audacity to call me a liar.
lolololol
--
Billy Colburn
Billy Colburn
> "Billy Colburn" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2uofqr....@news.alt.net...
>
>> Proof?
>
> You've lied the last four posts in a row now. Two here and
> two in the Letterman thread.
>
> http://google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/c21dc44d8e2e187f
A link is not proof of a lie. Neither is the fact that you saw fit to
disagree with me, so don't bother posting that as your "proof" either.
After all, a lie is an intentional misstatement of fact and I did no
such thing.
Of course you calling me a liar is itself a lie; because I have only
disagreed with you and stated my opinions. Unlike you, I won't stoop to
childish namecalling and false accusations. That's for people who can't
win an argument on the facts.
How's that Letterman thing going?
--
Billy Colburn
KalElFan
> ... a lie is an intentional misstatement of fact and I did
> no such thing.
Once would be excusable and possibly unintentional.
Multiple times four posts in a row, no.
> How's that Letterman thing going?
My last post on it was last Monday, so last month now and
most of the Letterloons had the sense to let it go since. I'll
excerpt it at the end of this post but here's the link to the
last substantive post I made on it:
http://google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/6e5d7ac925be486c
As I mentioned in that post and one earlier, and will for
the third time now, from my point of view the Letterman
apology on Monday, June 15 and the acceptance by Palin
was enough and the best approach was for those outraged
to just keep their powder dry. But it was a close call, by
the time the full extent of what he did became clear.
An article today noted that all the networks are without
ANY firm advertising buys for the Fall, mainly a dispute
over price with the buyers wanting a 20% reduction from
last year. With that, the median age of Dave's viewers
being 56.7, the unknown negative effects from this last
Palin controversy and skittishness about it lingering, and
the prospect of another one if the loons are right and
Dave's a moron who'll cross the line again, buyers are
not going to be charging in enthusiastically to advertise
on Dave's show.
I watched the apology on the Monday and the desk
segment of a few of the shows after that (also the
interview with Sandra Day O'Connor). None of
Dave's Palin jokes crossed the line. He had the Lens
crafters one, and the one about some in the Gay Pride
Parade dressing up as Palin, another about there being
that 5.7 or whatever it was earthquake in Alaska and
then silence and he says he's afraid to say anything
more. Tonight he had a set but nothing jarring. I
think Dave is so last decade at this point
A few loons were insisting he was going to ratchet
it up even more. That's not the sense I get. I think it's
quite plausible that he genuinely realizes it went too far
and he and his writers won't go there again. If they
do, I think CBS will fire him on the spot and I'm still
interested to see what happened with the extension.
The excerpt:
"Especially among those who fully understand the extent of it,
no manufacturing is necessary and no misunderstanding alters
it. Even if Letterman's plea of ignorance rang true (it doesn't,
especially not a week after that fact) aiming that joke at the
18-year-old was bad enough. Then comparing her to a
prostitute via the Spitzer reference. Add the context of the
"slutty" "joke" aimed at her mother... Then the Wednesday
debacle where his *DEFENSE* is that it was aimed at the
18-year-old and he liked the slutty joke and so on....
"An 18-year-old who happened to have a kid out of wedlock
gets skewered as a slut and a prostitute getting knocked up
again in a 7th inning quickie, and her mom is slutty so it's no
surprise. Imagine if the racist equivalent of that kind of sexism
and misogyny was the *DEFENSE* that Imus or anyone else
offered up.
And it doesn't even end there. I'm waiting for the Obama
cocaine jokes that obviously must be well within bounds..."