The role of women in the past election

[nobody]

Seems like I've seen this thread before.

 

At the time I made a comment that the 1st lady's job is to throw nice dinner parties. I think that is what the 81% also believe. I guess you can add that they should give a good photo op when they are visiting some sick kids in the hospital.

 

I wonder how Bill's dinner parties will be - going to have to put in a big grill in the rose garden for the BBQ.

[KRC]

They have millions of listeners and their books sell out and on top of that, I can attest myself to the fact that people really do believe that tripe.  You see it parrotted here often enough. 

152311[/snapback]

 

That is no different from what we see from the parrots/lemmings from the other side of the aisle. I do not see you calling any of them out. Don't give me this "well, the righties call out those lefties, so there is no need for me to do it as well" stuff that I usually get from you when I point this out.

 

Al Franken and Michael Moore have best selling books, along with plenty of other "lefties" who are no better than Limbaugh and his ilk. Where is your criticism of them? You seem to be suprisingly quiet when it comes to people like that.

 

How about some consistency?

[nobody]

How about some consistency?

152360[/snapback]

 

OK maybe you 2 need to have a contest! How about KRC makes a criticism about Limbaugh, etc. and then Mickey has to make a criticism or Moore, etc. Keep going until someone can't come up with something against "their side." This could takes months.

[KRC]

OK maybe you 2 need to have a contest!  How about KRC makes a criticism about Limbaugh, etc. and then Mickey has to make a criticism or Moore, etc.  Keep going until someone can't come up with something against "their side."  This could takes months.

152390[/snapback]

 

I don't listen to talk radio or read any of their books. I already know that they are crap. Nice try, though.

[Mickey]

That is no different from what we see from the parrots/lemmings from the other side of the aisle. I do not see you calling any of them out. Don't give me this "well, the righties call out those lefties, so there is no need for me to do it as well" stuff that I usually get from you when I point this out.

 

Al Franken and Michael Moore have best selling books, along with plenty of other "lefties" who are no better than Limbaugh and his ilk. Where is your criticism of them? You seem to be suprisingly quiet when it comes to people like that.

 

How about some consistency?

152360[/snapback]

How about some yourself? When is the last time someone complained about Moore and you were critical of them because they didn't also, at the same time and in verifiably identical terms, denounce Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, Liddy, North, Shlesinger, O'Reilly and the rest? I don't believe I have an obligation to denounce either everyone or no one and if you and others feel you do, that is certainly not what is refelected in your posts.

 

I don't see a valid comparison with Franken and Limbaugh at all. I don't see that calling Limbaugh a liar (Franken) and calling every democrat in America a traitor (Coulter) as the same. Partly that is becuase Limbaugh is in fact a liar and in fact democrats are not traitors. Of course, that would be a retreat into facts which are not very popular around here.

[blzrul]

Of course, that would be a retreat into facts which are not very popular around here.

152456[/snapback]

Well that's just on PPP. Every so often I go over to the Wall and find that the wingnuts are FAR outnumbered over there. That's why they seem to congregate here and why it often feels like a wingnut cesspool. If you take a minute and count there aren't that many of them. They're just vocal and persistent is all.

[Alaska Darin]

Well that's just on PPP.  Every so often I go over to the Wall and find that the wingnuts are FAR outnumbered over there. That's why they seem to congregate here and why it often feels like a wingnut cesspool.  If you take a minute and count there aren't that many of them. They're just vocal and persistent is all.

152626[/snapback]

She types from the safety of her aluminum foiled room...

[Terry Tate]

Well that's just on PPP.  Every so often I go over to the Wall and find that the wingnuts are FAR outnumbered over there. That's why they seem to congregate here and why it often feels like a wingnut cesspool.  If you take a minute and count there aren't that many of them. They're just vocal and persistent is all.

152626[/snapback]

It's just a matter of time before we succeed.

 

Pinky : " Gee, CaWingnut, what are we going to do tonight?"

CaWingnut: "The same thing we do every night Pinky. Try to take over the world!"

[AKC]

"Passionately hate Bush"???  You have concluded that everyone who disagrees with you is a left wing Bush hating, gutless liberal so I guess actually giving you a vague idea of may actual political positions would be pointless wouldn't it? For example, did you know I supported the war and that my oft expressed opinion of it by election time was that I was going to vote based on who I thought had the best chance of winning it?

 

By the way, what is so insidious about eating raisins?  I have no problem with Laura Bush as our First Lady nor would I have had with Theresa.  I also eat a raisin now and then myself so what the eff do I know.

 

Forgive my confusion, I haven't heard Matthews or Russert rant about "liberal bastions" or "gutless liberals" or complain about the nefarious eating of raisins by political spouses.  Maybe you could point out some of your posts complaining about the right using just the same level of vitriol and undisguised rage that you so generously spew at the left so that I can see first hand that your a "moderate"?

 

Again, if you can point out any posts of mine where I used the phrase "right wing conspiracy", please do.  Until then why don't you argue with me over what I have actually said rather than making things up?

152267[/snapback]

 

You might leave the obfuscation accusations in the garage of that glass house you spend so much time in. Let's try this, let's get back to the original opinion I posted:

 

In the 2004 election I believe most Americans, and especially American women, made some mental acknowledgement of the fact that George Bush surrounds himself with strong, intelligent women who he truly appreciates and values in his decisionmaking processes.

 

The alternative candidate has divorced one certified nutcase and is currently married to another woman that everyone in America except Mickey, plus a tiny handfull of leftist lunatics realize is a fruitcake. He also showed little respect for the women in his campaign, ignoring and demoting his top female staff as the campaign wore on.

 

I don't expect you to see it the same way a centrist like myself does, I'm merely offering the opinion for those with even a minute level of objectivity that might allow them to consider why Bush did far better with women than conventional wisdom claimed he would.

[SactoBillFan]

Strong women may very well have held substantial sway in this past federal election, but what’s surprising is the difference variety of “strong” women in the eye of the hurricane. After reading some of the campaign accounts of both camps it strikes me that Bush probably gained 5 or 6 points among women by surrounding himself with strong, intelligent women like Karen Hughes, Condoleeza and his nationally adored wife while Kerry was apparently subjugated by a different strong woman, a wife who can accurately be characterized as a bit loony. There was also talk of bringing Kerry’s first wife into the campaign but wiser heads seem to have prevailed in keeping a woman who apparently been in “seclusion” since ’88 suffering from mental health issues below the radar. I’ve got to believe that this difference in the candidates own choices of the types of women they choose to surround themselves with was hardly lost on the female voters around our country, an area the Dems hoped to exploit but fell well short of pre-election expectations.

 

While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election. Democrats may do well to rethink their own vetting process in the next cycle by looking at the totality of their candidate’s assets and liabilities.

150391[/snapback]

 

A George arse kissing contest between you and Laura would be a close call.

 

Yes George. Of course George. Sure your right George. George can't be wrong, he never makes any mistakes. Ask George. What should I think today George? Should I ask Uncle Dick? Or Uncle Karl?

 

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. I think you would win.

 

Laura Bush, she's so adorable! If I had only known her as Laura Welch. B)

[KRC]

How about some yourself?  When is the last time someone complained about Moore and you were critical of them because they didn't also, at the same time and in verifiably identical terms, denounce Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, Liddy, North, Shlesinger, O'Reilly and the rest?  I don't believe I have an obligation to denounce either everyone or no one and if you and others feel you do, that is certainly not what is refelected in your posts.

 

I don't see a valid comparison with Franken and Limbaugh at all.  I don't see that calling Limbaugh a liar (Franken) and calling every democrat in America a traitor (Coulter) as the same.  Partly that is becuase Limbaugh is in fact a liar and in fact democrats are not traitors.  Of course, that would be a retreat into facts which are not very popular around here.

152456[/snapback]

 

Well, the fact that I have ripped Limbaugh/Hannity along with ripping Moore/Franken kinda shoots holes in your argument. For someone who rips RiO for being a partisan hack, you are quite the hypocrite. Nice attempt at deflection away from your actions.

 

If it was a occasional shot at them, then there would be no issue. You have an obsession with these people and it is clouding your judgement. I used to have high respect for your posts. I may not have agreed with the bulk of your opinions, but I always could count on you for intelligent opinions and you have (on many occasions) caused me to rethink my views on certain topics. Now, you have seemed to go off the deep end and have turned into the liberal version of RiO (just not the obnoxious part). It is sad to see such a quality poster become nothing more than a political hack with an unhealthy obsession with conservative pundits.

[Mickey]

You might leave the obfuscation accusations in the garage of that glass house you spend so much time in. Let's try this, let's get back to the original opinion I posted:

 

In the 2004 election I believe most Americans, and especially American women, made some mental acknowledgement of the fact that George Bush surrounds himself with strong, intelligent women who he truly appreciates and values in his decisionmaking processes.

 

The alternative candidate has divorced one certified nutcase and is currently married to another woman that everyone in America except Mickey,  plus a tiny handfull of leftist lunatics realize is a fruitcake. He also showed little respect for the women in his campaign, ignoring and demoting his top female staff as the campaign wore on.

 

I don't expect you to see it the same way a centrist like myself does, I'm merely offering the opinion for those with even a minute level of objectivity that might allow them to consider why Bush did far better with women than conventional wisdom claimed he would.

152808[/snapback]

 

Yes, your original opinion was that the wife of the candidate you supported was "nationally adored" and that coincidentally, both the first and second wife of the candidate you despise are "lunatics". You find that position to be one of moderation, balance and free of hyperbole. I see it as nothing but hyperbole and partisan spin. If you had simply stated that in general people like Laura more than they like Theresa, we wouldn't be arguing because that is a simple fact. Maybe you think it is a moderate, centrist position to conclude that anyone ever treated for depression or other mental illness is permanently and forever a "certified lunatic" but I do not. By the way, is that a technical term you can prove is applicable here with a link of some kind or is it simply a convenient insult

you are willing to use to slam a perfect a stranger to make a point? Again, perhaps you think it is the height of moderation to use the personal, medical struggles of a former political spouse who is no longer involved in politics simply to make a partisan point. We will just have to disagree there.

 

Bush won the election 51% to 48% and his supporters have claimed that as a massive mandate, an overwhelming victory. Kerry won the women's vote by the same margin, 51% to 48%. Should I therefore conclude that Laura Bush is a plastic fembot with about as much depth as rain puddle and that Theresa is "nationally adored"?? Perhaps I should include your objective, scientific findings that Laura is adored and Kerry's wives are lunatics and conclude that even with that handicap, Kerry carried the women's vote by the same "powerful mandate" that Bush carried in the general vote hence women must really, really, hate Bush.

That would be stupid, an overstatement of the highest order and nothing but spin but it would be in keeping with your logic.

[Mickey]

Well, the fact that I have ripped Limbaugh/Hannity along with ripping Moore/Franken kinda shoots holes in your argument. For someone who rips RiO for being a partisan hack, you are quite the hypocrite. Nice attempt at deflection away from your actions.

 

If it was a occasional shot at them, then there would be no issue. You have an obsession with these people and it is clouding your judgement. I used to have high respect for your posts. I may not have agreed with the bulk of your opinions, but I always could count on you for intelligent opinions and you have (on many occasions) caused me to rethink my views on certain topics. Now, you have seemed to go off the deep end and have turned into the liberal version of RiO (just not the obnoxious part). It is sad to see such a quality poster become nothing more than a political hack with an unhealthy obsession with conservative pundits.

153026[/snapback]

I guess we are both disappointed. I would have thought that a post calling a former wife of a politician, no longer active in politics, a certified lunatic because of at one time in the past having been treated for depression or some such disorder would have drawn your fire rather than your protection. Even the mafia stays away from families. I would have had nothing to say if he simply made the point that Laura was more likeable than Theresa and that might have helped Bush. Instead, he had to go that extra partisan mile by making Laura "nationally adored" and labeled not just Theresa but even Kerry's first wife as "lunatics". Maybe you see that as moderate, enlightening debate, I don't. It is the exact type of overstated, overheated, mean spirited rhetoric that makes civil debate here or elsewhere so difficult.

 

I went through this with BJ a few weeks ago where we ended up agreeing that the problem was that too many on both sides insist on seeing the other as: gay bashing nazis or baby killing sodomites, depending on their point of view. How do I have a civil debate with someone who sees me as a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer, a baby killer, a gay lover etc., etc.? I can't. For those who discuss things with me rationally, I get along fine even when we sharply disagree. For those who want to call into question my patriotism simply because I voted for John Kerry, sorry, I am not going to take that crap laying down, I am going to give it right back to those Limbaugh clones and Coulter echoes that lurk around here in such numbers. Something tells me that if someone called you a coward, you would respond and you wouldn't be too concerned with civility.

 

As for complaining about Coulter and company, I think the problem is that they exist and are listened to, not that there are people like me who, in their own very small corner of the world, call them out. What concerns you more, these people and their tactics or my complaining about them more often than I have in the past?

 

By the way, I have complained about this crap from both sides but I don't keep a tote board and my concern is pretty proportional to their influence. Again, I don't feel an obligation at all to have to complain about every injustice or none at all. I accept your assertion that you have slammed Hannity, etc. on occasion out of respect for you though that has not been my perception. I don't keep a scoreboard of your posts either. I have complained about things democrats have said and done often enough and if you don't want to accept that assertion, that is your perogative. I am not going to argue my credentials with you.

[KRC]

I guess we are both disappointed.  I would have thought that a post calling a former wife of a politician, no longer active in politics, a certified lunatic because of at one time in the past having been treated for depression or some such disorder would have drawn your fire rather than your protection.  Even the mafia stays away from families.  I would have had nothing to say if he simply made the point that Laura was more likeable than Theresa and that might have helped Bush.  Instead, he had to go that extra partisan mile by making Laura "nationally adored" and labeled not just Theresa but even Kerry's first wife as "lunatics".  Maybe you see that as moderate, enlightening debate, I don't.  It is the exact type of overstated, overheated, mean spirited rhetoric that makes civil debate here or elsewhere so difficult.

 

I went through this with BJ a few weeks ago where we ended up agreeing that the problem was that too many on both sides insist on seeing the other as: gay bashing nazis or baby killing sodomites, depending on their point of view.  How do I have a civil debate with someone who sees me as a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer, a baby killer, a gay lover etc., etc.?  I can't.  For those who discuss things with me rationally, I get along fine even when we sharply disagree.  For those who want to call into question my patriotism simply because I voted for John Kerry, sorry, I am not going to take that crap laying down, I am going to give it right back to those Limbaugh clones and Coulter echoes that lurk around here in such numbers.  Something tells me that if someone called you a coward, you would respond and you wouldn't be too concerned with civility.

 

As for complaining about Coulter and company, I think the problem is that they exist and are listened to, not that there are people like me who, in their own very small corner of the world, call them out.  What concerns you more, these people and their tactics or my complaining about them more often than I have in the past?

 

By the way, I have complained about this crap from both sides but I don't keep a tote board and my concern is pretty proportional to their influence.  Again, I don't feel an obligation at all to have to complain about every injustice or none at all.  I accept your assertion that you have slammed Hannity, etc. on occasion out of respect for you though that has not been my perception.  I don't keep a scoreboard of your posts either.  I have complained about things democrats have said and done often enough and if you don't want to accept that assertion, that is your perogative.  I am not going to argue my credentials with you.

153226[/snapback]

 

 

Protection? What protection? Are you now going to say that since I did not criticize it, then I am condoning it? If that is the case, since I did not see you criticize the "Republicans are Nazis" stuff, that must mean you condone it. That would be a problem, since you are criticizing others for making equally outlandish statements about Dems.

 

WTF does the Laura/Theresa have to do with our discussion? The bulk of your post has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. Why are you continuing to try to deflect, instead of addressing my post directly?

 

As for complaining about Coulter and company, I think the problem is that they exist and are listened to, not that there are people like me who, in their own very small corner of the world, call them out.

 

Funny, I did not have you pegged for the type of person who wants to suppress free speech rights. If that is the case, I am suprised that you have not crusaded for the banning of Michael Moore who uses the same tactics to sway people to his way of thinking as Limbaugh uses to sway people to his line of thinking. I criticize Moore for providing crap. I criticize Limbaugh/Hannity for providing crap.

 

What is also funny, is that you criticize people for listening to Limbaugh, but in order for you to know what he says, don't you need to listen to him as well? If you are listening to him, then aren't you adding to the problem by increasing his ratings which keeps him on the air? If you are not listening to him, then how can you legitimately criticize his words? Seems like either way you look at it, you have a problem.

 

If I remember correctly, weren't you one of the ones who criticized conservatives for bringing attention to the Franken v. Fox fiasco? Seems like you are victim of the same thing that you criticized. You are bringing more attention to this stuff by constantly bringin it up. Even if the post does not require it, you are still trying to spin things in such a way as to be able to bring up his name. It seems like you are only adding to the problem, instead of doing soemthing to fix it.

 

You are proving to be no better than the people you criticize.

[Mickey]

Read back through the thread and tell me if my first post, my second post, my third post, my fourth post or my fifth post ever mentioned Hannity and company?

 

The sixth did but ony because AKC had ranted at me that I insulted the military, that I was a gutless liberal who had impugned the intelligence of our troops and on and on and on. That is when I brought up those wretches and I didn't bring them up again in my seventh or eight post in the thread. My criticism of those crazies in that context was neither inconsistent nor the product of obsession.

 

Besides, if you can critisize them, what is so terrible about me critisizing them? Is my critique of them off base? Do you disagree with my view of them? Am I only allowed to do so if I am identically critical of everyone else or at least as perfectly balanced as you claim you are?

 

I am not the one trying to say that inorder to be credible in speaking out against an injustice, one has to speak out against all injustices. You don't have to respond to AKC's rant about the nationally adored one and the lunatics to be taken seriously anymore than I have to take on every rant by Michael Moore or Al Franken. Your silence on AKC's point doesn't imply agreement but neither does what you perceive as my silence when it comes to Franken or Moore imply approval of their every remark either. Since that was your apparent point with me, that I can't credibly critisize Hannity, etc unless I also critisize Moore, etc., I turned it around on you and pointed out that you were silent in this very thread on an issue that if you were truly as balanced as you claim, you should have been all over. Rather than being upset with AKC dragging in Kerry's ex-wife and his ridicule of her struggles with depression, or at least upset enought to post on it, you instead were more concerned that I thought Hannity and company were crazy even though you apparently agree with that very same point. I think the salient point is whether my view of Coulter and company is accurate or not. If you want to argue that, have at it.

 

Whose talking about limiting free speech? Calm down a second. My concern is that these people exist and they do because they have an audience, people are listening to them. If they were crazies on street corners ranting at strangers I wouldn't care. No one is saying they don't have the right to spew that hate. That isn't the problem. The fact that their books are best sellers, that they are on the radio 24-7 shows that they aren't harmless clowns providing entertainment which is the excuse I get from the reasonable right whenever I bring up these people. Somebody is buying those books.

 

I think that to the more rational conservatives out there, these people are an embarassment but increasingly, they are driving the republican bus, not the moderates. Michael Moore has about as much influence in the democratic party as Ralph Nader does, who Moore supported in 2000. He really is a harmless clown, a comedian by avocation. Coulter, Hannity, etc., they aren't going for laughs, they aren't entertainers interested in politics, they are propagandists.

 

I don't listen to Limbaugh, I have however read criticism of his work which included transcripts of his broadcasts. On occasion I have been a passenger, captive really, in a vehicle whose driver never missed a Limbaugh broadcast. My sense of manners and desire to be polite mandated that I shut my mouth and bear it. I don't think I have had a measurable effect on his ratings. I know there are many on the right that would like to sweep him under the rug or hide him in the attic while Rudy G. sits in the parlor but I think the influence of Coulter and company, collectively, exceeds his and that of other moderates by a mile.

 

I don't know that my complaining on a message board about these people is comparable to a major network filing a lawsuit with no legal basis in federal court to suppress publication of a national best seller. If I ever do, I'll let you know. And you can burn me good on it. Somehow, I don't think my complaining about Coulter here is going to sell any of her books or even cut in to her sales. Especially since, in this thread, it only came up once in 8 posts until you and I started in on the subject. By the way, the Fox v. Franken shot was a bit of a stretch don't you think? I must really have you ticked.

 

All I can do is make a peace offering. Without agreeing that I haven't, I will try and be more consistent when I run across looney left talk to be sure that I am not being unfair in that regard if you will agree to let me rag on Coulter, etc. as long as they are being legitimately crazy and to respond in kind when someone hits me with the baby killing, gay lover crap. I realize that means I will have to actually start reading posts with "Moore" in the title. I'm all about sacrifice. I avoided them for a long time because I hadn't seen F911 and then when I did, no one was talking about it anymore.

 

Let me start it off right: Michael Moore is funny but wouldn't know "fair" if it fell out of his lunch bag or came in a Pop-Tart box.

 

Ooooh, I feel more balanced already.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

For example, did you know I supported the war and that my oft expressed opinion of it by election time was that I was going to vote based on who I thought had the best chance of winning it?

 

 

152267[/snapback]

 

 

I'd like to see an example of this here at PPP, please.

[Alaska Darin]

I'd like to see an example of this here at PPP, please.

153937[/snapback]

I remember him saying that.

[Mickey]

I remember him saying that.

153944[/snapback]

Thanks. In fact, in one of your more memorable turns of wit, I recall you referring to me as "Mr. War Monger". It was funny enough and accurate enough for me not to object.

 

I actually wrote a long post (as if I ever wrote a short one) back in the pre-war days that set forth what for me was the best justification for the war. The bare bones of it was that we could no longer ignore people who say they want to kill us. After 9/11, we had to take them seriously. From now on, if a nation's people or government say they want to kill us, we have to believe them and act accordingly. There was a lot more to it than that but not many people care about subtlety or nuance around here so I'll give every one a break and not bother.

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks.  In fact, in one of your more memorable turns of wit, I recall you referring to me as "Mr. War Monger".  It was funny enough and accurate enough for me not to object.

 

I actually wrote a long post (as if I ever wrote a short one) back in the pre-war days that set forth what for me was the best justification for the war.  The bare bones of it was that we could no longer ignore people who say they want to kill us.  After 9/11, we had to take them seriously.  From now on, if a nation's people or government say they want to kill us, we have to believe them and act accordingly.  There was a lot more to it than that but not many people care about subtlety or nuance around here so I'll give every one a break and not bother.

154195[/snapback]

You're welcome. I have such a mind for nuance.

[Simon]

The alternative candidate.....is currently married to another woman that everyone in America except Mickey, plus a tiny handfull of leftist lunatics realize is a fruitcake.

 

You're going to have to include me in there somewhere. I see her as more a breath of fresh air than a fruitcake. She doesn't strike me as interested in playing the demure, obedient political wife who says all the right things when prompted. Instead she strikes me as more of a living breathing human being who says what she thinks whether anybody else damned well likes it or not.

It seems to me that it is this glaring contradiction with her cheerleader peers that gives the false impression that she is a loon. She stands out the way a human being would in a room full of robots. Her problem isn't that she's crazy, it's that she's normal.

And no, I didn't vote for that tool she is currently married to.

Cya

[Mickey]

You're going to have to include me in there somewhere. I see her as more a breath of fresh air than a fruitcake. She doesn't strike me as interested in playing the demure, obedient political wife who says all the right things when prompted. Instead she strikes me as more of a living breathing human being who says what she thinks whether anybody else damned well likes it or not.

It seems to me that it is this glaring contradiction with her cheerleader peers that gives the false impression that she is a loon. She stands out the way a human being would in a room full of robots. Her problem isn't that she's crazy, it's that she's normal.

And no, I didn't vote for that tool she is currently married to.

Cya

154658[/snapback]

People always say they like a "straight shooter" and deplore the sanitized, poll approved, scripted political speech that is the norm. That is until they actually run across a "straight shooter". Then they pillory him or her for not sticking to the script. On top of that, she does speak with a thick foreign accent which just doesn't fit the mold for a "nationally adored" First Lady. Funny, for a party that claims to deplore class warfare and complaints about the wealthy, they sure went after her for being rich now didn't they?

[Simon]

Here's a relatively fair-minded article from a writer who is familiar with her on a local level.

 

I think the guy sums it up well when he says, "Teresa Heinz Kerry behaves normally in normal situations and normally in aberrant situations that call for stagecraft and phoniness. Consequently, she seems weird"

 

 

 

 

P'burgh Post-Gazette

[AKC]

Here's a relatively fair-minded article from a writer who is familiar with her on a local level.

 

I think the guy sums it up well when he says, "Teresa Heinz Kerry behaves normally in normal situations and normally in aberrant situations that call for stagecraft and phoniness. Consequently, she seems weird"

P'burgh Post-Gazette

154749[/snapback]

 

While I wouldn't call the campaign trail an exclusively representative period of one's life, the study of those involved in most cases does answer a lot of questions about their makeup. I'll grant the reporter in Pittsburgh his time in the company of THK, but I can't ignore the virtually to a reporter assessments of her on the campaign. Time and Newsweek reporters who rubbed elbows with her over the full campaign and were granted special access came away "less than impressed" and there's nowhere I've seen where the word "normal" was even considered in stories about her. Post campaign each of these sources list "hypochondriac" as a primary trait of the potential first lady. She is reported to have mixed up various " holistic potions" to help her husband recover from the rigors of the campaign, concoctions that raised the eyes of staff and press alike while conjuring images of a newt's eye mixed with three hairs from a rhino's butt. If we're talking about proximity to the subject, these two sources seem to have had the closest look and it's at the very least provocative that Time and Newsweek come away with similar unflattering views of THK.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420966/site/newsweek/

 

I don't see the Time article online but it was far less flattering a picture they painted of her, and Newsweek's is hardly flattering.

 

I don't know if the individual eccentricities tell us a lot about THK, things like her wearing sunglasses at night, etc. But I do have a broad frame of reference regarding hypochondriacs and frankly the company in which they reside on my life scale is somewhere between the Area 51 crowd and the sadly alone even when surrounded by others. The other thing that I get from the post-election coverage, and I guess perhaps an expansion of the subject I started the string with, is that Bush seems to genuinely be involved in a partnership with his wife while Kerry to a some degree appears dominated and perhaps even subjugated by his. Those are nuances that I'm confident are not exclusively seen from the distance at which I reside from the subject.

[Bill from NYC]

I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed.  All you have done is present an undated local radio station poll where the respondents indicated they thought Theresa was hurting Kerry's chances.  You go from that to concluding that she is a lunatic?  I wonder, did you know of that poll before your assertion that she was a lunatic or did you dig it up afterward in an attempt to justify the conclusions you already reached with no research beyond the last Limbaugh rant you listened to?

 

So, it is your "understanding" that she was institutionalized?  Do you have anything better than your "understanding" by way of proof?  Forgive me if I am reluctant to slur a total stranger based on your "understanding". 

 

Again, I await your links to polls showing that Mrs. Bush is nationally "adored" as opposed to "liked", "respected", etc.  51 million people voted against her husband so apparently not everyone "adores" her or is stupid enough to cast their vote based on their personal like or dislike for the candidates spouse.

151117[/snapback]

 

Mickey, in the political climate of America today, a small bloc of votes can be enough to carry a state.

Certainly, if TK was perceived by some to be a "lunatic," "gold digger," or "fag-hag," this cost her husband votes. Otoh, voters probably had less reason to dislike Mrs. Bush, and many adore his mom.

Btw, I am not calling Ms. Kerry a "fag-hag." It is merely a term, one that I do not use. As for the other two phrases........

[AKC]

perhaps you think it is the height of moderation to use the personal, medical struggles of a former political spouse who is no longer involved in politics simply to make a partisan point.  We will just have to disagree there.

 

153141[/snapback]

 

That's your point, not mine, hence there's no reason to disagree about it.

 

To get you back to my point, Kerry has historically acted like a fly on the proverbial whenever he meets a loony-toon female with a big bankroll, and he's willing to trade one loony for a wealthier one if the MSM stories about THK are accurate. You're certainly welcome to admire those kind of motives, though they seem kinda' shallow and disingenuous to me. Could be I'm just naive, having grown up in a small town and being raised under those very different values a lot of the press are talking about now. Maybe you and yours know better- maybe we should discard those we claim to love when a better financial arrangement comes along? I'll stick with the small town values though, and perhaps in turn you'll excuse my naivate?

 

 

 

On the issue of adoration of Laura Bush, a general Google Search for:

 

adore Laura Bush

 

brings over 40 thousand hits. You might find it educational to plug in:

 

adore Theresa Heinz Kerry

 

;-)