Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Because Baldwin's show was a novelty, he was disposable.
Bashir might I remind you actually has a pretty long resume as a credible broadcaster, even if he does like to throw bombs. Before MSNBC he served 6 years at ABC and even hosted Nightline.
He had already apologized and Palin accepted it. Your assertion that conservative women are to "be attacked at all costs" doesn't hold a lot of water...there you go whitewashing everything again.
Additionally, do you excuse Palin's remarks about slavery? Watch the video, she doesn't exactly sound intelligent.
-spence
|
"Because Baldwin's show was a novelty, he was disposable."
I don't think you could categorize Bashir as a ratings monster...
"Bashir might I remind you actually has a pretty long resume as a credible broadcaster,"
I might remoind you, so did Dan Rather. Even broadcasters with pretty long resumes (unimpressive as that length might be) ought to be held to some standards, don't you agree?
"He had already apologized and Palin accepted it"
Irrelevent. Victims accept apologies all the time, that doesn't mean the case is closed.
"your assertion that conservative women are to "be attacked at all costs" doesn't hold a lot of water
I guess you had your head in the sand, or up Obama's you-know-what, during the 2008 campaign. Palin (who was a terrible candidate and thus open to all kinds of legitimate criticism) wasn't excatly treated with the respect that liberals claim to reserve for the female of the species.
"do you excuse Palin's remarks about slavery?"
She said that our kids will, in a way, be enslaved by the debt we are saddling them with. I have no issue with that statement, none whatsoever. No rational person believes that she was saying that debt is identical to slavery. Similarly, liberals like to say that the GOP is "waging war" on women, and "holding the taxpayers hostage" and things like that. It seems that liberals are very selective about when they take these statements literally.
"she doesn't exactly sound intelligent"
As opposed to the current vice president, I suppose?
If you define "intelligent" as coming across as Ivy League-polished, I agree, she aint that. But she, unlike Obama, at least appears to know that you can't add tens of millions to the rolls of health iunsurance, and increase coverage for everyone, while lowering costs by $2500 a year for the average family. I'm sure you thought Obama sounded brilliant and eloquent when he said that. Problem is, he has accomplished exactly none of that.
If the choice is a less-than-polished person with actual real-world accomplishments under their belt, or a smooth-talker who spent his career in an Ivy League faculty room...well, I think the last 5 years have convinced many of us that a Harvard degree doesn't necessarily mean one can effectively solve problems.