Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

I heard an interview with Tom Morello and they asked him what his thoughts on the iranian situation where 1.5 million are showing up to protest. He replied with something along the lines of, I don't really care about that situation in Iran there are issues that happen every day in America and there is no outrage.My question is with all this happening why don't we have massive protests with 1.5 million people showing up to show their disappointment. Where is the "change" that we were supposed to see and since we don't see it why aren't we more pissed off? Are we really too busy or too lazy to do nothing about this? The founding fathers knew that it wasn't a government that can change people, but rather people that change people. We need a revolution of ideals and values that start with the people of America. Politicians won't change, but we can, the only question remains is if we will..02

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

I heard an interview with Tom Morello and they asked him what his thoughts on the iranian situation where 1.5 million are showing up to protest. He replied with something along the lines of, I don't really care about that situation in Iran there are issues that happen every day in America and there is no outrage.My question is with all this happening why don't we have massive protests with 1.5 million people showing up to show their disappointment. Where is the "change" that we were supposed to see and since we don't see it why aren't we more pissed off? Are we really too busy or too lazy to do nothing about this? The founding fathers knew that it wasn't a government that can change people, but rather people that change people. We need a revolution of ideals and values that start with the people of America. Politicians won't change, but we can, the only question remains is if we will..02
I wanted to comment on this but eh, what are ya gonna do?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard an interview with Tom Morello and they asked him what his thoughts on the iranian situation where 1.5 million are showing up to protest. He replied with something along the lines of, I don't really care about that situation in Iran there are issues that happen every day in America and there is no outrage.My question is with all this happening why don't we have massive protests with 1.5 million people showing up to show their disappointment. Where is the "change" that we were supposed to see and since we don't see it why aren't we more pissed off? Are we really too busy or too lazy to do nothing about this? The founding fathers knew that it wasn't a government that can change people, but rather people that change people. We need a revolution of ideals and values that start with the people of America. Politicians won't change, but we can, the only question remains is if we will..02
The difference is that we have a process in place for dealing with things about the government that we don't like -- we vote them out of office. The problem in Iran was that the people were powerless to remove their leader from office. We elected Obama through a relatively fair election. If Cheney had rigged the vote to subvert the will of the people and get McCain in office, we'd probably be out there in large crowds like they are.But if you are outraged by something, by all means organize an angry flag-waving rally. If you are unhappy with Obama though, you are in the minority. His approval rate is still over 60% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-D...b-Approval.aspx).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another day, another corrupt and cynical political move. Yawn. How's that hope and change going?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.htmlPresident Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules. A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs. Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama. Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car. At the end of May, Mr. Walpin's office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be "suspended" from receiving federal funds. The Corporation's official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin's office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California. So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension. The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation's findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals shown to have misused them. Mr. Brown's office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin's office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama's top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown's office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he'd referred, he'd never been cut out in such fashion. Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation's board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired. We've long disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congress designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars. There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim. That's because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he'd be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons. White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping. Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior adviser." If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony

Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is that we have a process in place for dealing with things about the government that we don't like -- we vote them out of office. The problem in Iran was that the people were powerless to remove their leader from office. We elected Obama through a relatively fair election. If Cheney had rigged the vote to subvert the will of the people and get McCain in office, we'd probably be out there in large crowds like they are.But if you are outraged by something, by all means organize an angry flag-waving rally. If you are unhappy with Obama though, you are in the minority. His approval rate is still over 60% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-D...b-Approval.aspx).
VB, my post was not in response to the Iranian election. It was a response to the three posts above me where people were specifically saying how much Obama had broken promises and kept up secrecy and selling the Americans a brand of bullshit.I was just trying to get across a point that it seems that everyone in America wants to talk and no one wants to do anything about it. We just let the president continue to try and sell us on his Health plans and extreme budgets and we sit on the sidelines and decide to wait it out. I am by no means saying we need to get rid of everything we have worked hard for as a nation over the last hundred years, but I am wondering where the huge protests from the 60's and 70's went. Have we all become so busy and lazy that we no longer get out and show the politicians what we want. We want REAL change not just the same song and dance from past administrations.
Link to post
Share on other sites
VB, my post was not in response to the Iranian election. It was a response to the three posts above me where people were specifically saying how much Obama had broken promises and kept up secrecy and selling the Americans a brand of bullshit.I was just trying to get across a point that it seems that everyone in America wants to talk and no one wants to do anything about it. We just let the president continue to try and sell us on his Health plans and extreme budgets and we sit on the sidelines and decide to wait it out. I am by no means saying we need to get rid of everything we have worked hard for as a nation over the last hundred years, but I am wondering where the huge protests from the 60's and 70's went. Have we all become so busy and lazy that we no longer get out and show the politicians what we want. We want REAL change not just the same song and dance from past administrations.
When the government tried to pull shady crap during the Vietnam era, kids did not have TIVOs, Ipods and World Series of Poker to distract them. Whether it's GOP misdeeds or Democrat misdeeds, we, as a nation, are too busy with our "stuff" to go out and make ourselves heard. The general apathy in this country is disconcerting.
Link to post
Share on other sites
VB, my post was not in response to the Iranian election. It was a response to the three posts above me where people were specifically saying how much Obama had broken promises and kept up secrecy and selling the Americans a brand of bullshit.I was just trying to get across a point that it seems that everyone in America wants to talk and no one wants to do anything about it. We just let the president continue to try and sell us on his Health plans and extreme budgets and we sit on the sidelines and decide to wait it out. I am by no means saying we need to get rid of everything we have worked hard for as a nation over the last hundred years, but I am wondering where the huge protests from the 60's and 70's went. Have we all become so busy and lazy that we no longer get out and show the politicians what we want. We want REAL change not just the same song and dance from past administrations.
Yeah I know you weren't responding to the Iranian election, but you compared our indifference to their outrage, and I think it's a useful comparison. I just think those kinds of large-scale protests really happen when people feel disenfranchised. E.g. in the US in the 50s/60s/70s blacks were effectively disenfranchised through cultural norms and laws, and then people had no voice in the decision to be sent to war.... I don't think the disapproval of economic policies leads to the same feeling of ultimate powerlessness over one's fate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When the government tried to pull shady crap during the Vietnam era, kids did not have TIVOs, Ipods and World Series of Poker to distract them. Whether it's GOP misdeeds or Democrat misdeeds, we, as a nation, are too busy with our "stuff" to go out and make ourselves heard. The general apathy in this country is disconcerting.
Some of it is apathy, but a good portion is most people just don't understand the gravity, can't grasp it. Most people can grasp million, might know what a billion means, and by the time trillion rolls around that's just one to many illions and now you lost them. Join that with the constant onslaught of this- then this- then this- then this and people throw up hands and just say **** it, I will take care of me and mine, because the job is too big. We tried on this site, that's for sure, but take me for example- I am vocal pretty much every day in my life and the only ones that are listening are the ones that agreed already, or the ones that like to try and push my buttons. I can't begin to tell you how much the whole election process helped me to develop a healthy loathing for many of the retards that permeate my life. It feels good, it really does. Believe it or not, in the past I was actually too tolerant. That being said, I won't stop. I don't give a **** about it not being PC, or the threat of job loss,or the perception that I must be a racist, etc. I will be as loud as I can, all day everyday. Alas, I am only one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of it is apathy, but a good portion is most people just don't understand the gravity, can't grasp it. Most people can grasp million, might know what a billion means, and by the time trillion rolls around that's just one to many illions and now you lost them. Join that with the constant onslaught of this- then this- then this- then this and people throw up hands and just say **** it, I will take care of me and mine, because the job is too big. We tried on this site, that's for sure, but take me for example- I am vocal pretty much every day in my life and the only ones that are listening are the ones that agreed already, or the ones that like to try and push my buttons. I can't begin to tell you how much the whole election process helped me to develop a healthy loathing for many of the retards that permeate my life. It feels good, it really does. Believe it or not, in the past I was actually too tolerant. That being said, I won't stop. I don't give a **** about it not being PC, or the threat of job loss,or the perception that I must be a racist, etc. I will be as loud as I can, all day everyday. Alas, I am only one.
I'm not trying to push your buttons on this one LMD but where is the Republican voice? Who has the plan, bucks, support and charisma to bring the Republican Party together enough to put up any kind of opposition? Because I want to see it happen. I want to see Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al have someone who can credibly oppose them. I am no more for one party government when it's the Democrats than I am when it's the Republicans. I want to see a balance and right now there isn't one. So is Pawlenty or Daniels your guy? Please please don't say it's Sarah Palin. There's no way in hell that she can be a credible candidate. She's got way too much baggage.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to push your buttons on this one LMD but where is the Republican voice? Who has the plan, bucks, support and charisma to bring the Republican Party together enough to put up any kind of opposition? Because I want to see it happen. I want to see Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al have someone who can credibly oppose them. I am no more for one party government when it's the Democrats than I am when it's the Republicans. I want to see a balance and right now there isn't one. So is Pawlenty or Daniels your guy? Please please don't say it's Sarah Palin. There's no way in hell that she can be a credible candidate. She's got way too much baggage.
I'm not sure why Pawlenty is getting mentioned so much, people don't even like him here. I don't think he is particularly disliked except by rabid statists, but Pawlenty has no charisma and no principles. He is the type of party lapdog that has driven the Republican party into minority status.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure why Pawlenty is getting mentioned so much
lack of options and when he speaks he does not sound completely idiotic.the void at the top of the GOP is enormous at the moment. did anyone think Newt would ever be relevant again? that's a huge upset...
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to push your buttons on this one LMD but where is the Republican voice? Who has the plan, bucks, support and charisma to bring the Republican Party together enough to put up any kind of opposition? Because I want to see it happen. I want to see Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al have someone who can credibly oppose them. I am no more for one party government when it's the Democrats than I am when it's the Republicans. I want to see a balance and right now there isn't one. So is Pawlenty or Daniels your guy? Please please don't say it's Sarah Palin. There's no way in hell that she can be a credible candidate. She's got way too much baggage.
Why does it have to be a Republican? I could care less about party as long as the policies make sense. As far as Palin having to much baggage, that's a product of media coverage, not a product of reality. Try not to be so gullible. I'm still amazed at what has been allowed to go on when it comes to her. Obama gay rumours is one thing- what if someone shot an Obama gay porn? How long do you think before that was blasted as disrespectful? Palin was still on the campaign trail and Who's Nailin Palin? was already in the works, with little more than a wimper. Would Letterman have asked if Chelsea was getting knocked up by A-Rod if Clinton was on his show? Hell,no.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does it have to be a Republican? I could care less about party as long as the policies make sense. As far as Palin having to much baggage, that's a product of media coverage, not a product of reality. Try not to be so gullible. I'm still amazed at what has been allowed to go on when it comes to her. Obama gay rumours is one thing- what if someone shot an Obama gay porn? How long do you think before that was blasted as disrespectful? Palin was still on the campaign trail and Who's Nailin Palin? was already in the works, with little more than a wimper. Would Letterman have asked if Chelsea was getting knocked up by A-Rod if Clinton was on his show? Hell,no.
when Clinton was president, the media called Chelsea ugly. It was true, but the idea that only Palin's kids have been the subject of jokes is ridiculous. The bush daughters made the news plenty of times for using fake id's and such. And as a Rush Limbaugh-lover, I am sure you were ok when Rush called then 13 year old Chelsea Clinton "The White House dog." Because Rush is not mean....he's a sweetheart when you listen to him all the time.Palin's lack of suitability to be president has nothing to do with baggage. They stem from her being an ignoramus. Try not to be so narrow-minded to think that just because the media is "mean" to her that means that all the criticisms of her are false. They aren't.What if someone said Obama wasn't really an American citizen? Or said he was a Muslim? Or an arab? Oh yeah, those things happened. Poor, poor Sarah Palin. I guess when she uses the media to try to destroy Levi or parades her kids around like show ponies to show off her values that is ok.....
Link to post
Share on other sites
when Clinton was president, the media called Chelsea ugly. It was true, but the idea that only Palin's kids have been the subject of jokes is ridiculous. The bush daughters made the news plenty of times for using fake id's and such. And as a Rush Limbaugh-lover, I am sure you were ok when Rush called then 13 year old Chelsea Clinton "The White House dog." Because Rush is not mean....he's a sweetheart when you listen to him all the time.Palin's lack of suitability to be president has nothing to do with baggage. They stem from her being an ignoramus. Try not to be so narrow-minded to think that just because the media is "mean" to her that means that all the criticisms of her are false. They aren't.What if someone said Obama wasn't really an American citizen? Or said he was a Muslim? Or an arab? Oh yeah, those things happened. Poor, poor Sarah Palin. I guess when she uses the media to try to destroy Levi or parades her kids around like show ponies to show off her values that is ok.....
The media called Chelsea ugly. They should be better than that, period. That's not a defense. Making news for fake ID's is making news, the Palin kids have as far as we can tell done nothing to make news. Once again, not a defense. I don't agree with everything Rush says, and I certainly don't agree with calling a 13 year old girl a dog, no matter what the context. That being said, knowing how Rush speaks, I would be willing to bet the context would have to be how Chelsea was paraded around as you put it, everywhere. I would bet my favorite cats life that he did not just come out and say "That girl is a dog, ugly as ****." Of course, you are pretty smart, so I imagine you probably already know that, you just like to pretend it was said a certain way.You're defense is "Well, its been done to others so whatever" and that's just plain unacceptable, period. As far as her being an ignoramus-maybe. I'm currently developing a porno starring a middle aged Latina woman who ****s her way to the Supreme Court, currently casting, blatantly, all over the internet, Sonia Sotamayor look a likes. Should be a big hit, and I expect nothing to come of it, it's all good. This level of disrespect has to stop, but being that we have free speech I will settle for both sides condemning this type of behavior, loudly and ferociously.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This level of disrespect has to stop, but being that we have free speech I will settle for both sides condemning this type of behavior, loudly and ferociously.
Absolutely not. David Letterman is a comedian. Typically when we are unable to laugh at something there's something wrong. I am disappointed that he apologized.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely not. David Letterman is a comedian. Typically when we are unable to laugh at something there's something wrong. I am disappointed that he apologized.
I know, implying that a person's child is being molested by a grown man is such a funny way to start a show.Why can't people just accept that since Dave is was a comedian once, he can say anything he wants and it's okay.I personally hope he starts with secret service men sleeping with Michelle and the girls while Barak is playing golf jokes. Man those will be funny.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely not. David Letterman is a comedian. Typically when we are unable to laugh at something there's something wrong. I am disappointed that he apologized.
How about if he would have said "Better make sure your daughter is not getting ass raped by the Yankee Stadium groundskeeper with his special splinter free wooden rake?" Of course that's not funny, disrespectful and in poor taste, as much as Letterman was. Mine was farther, but hey, its still comedy!!! Yuk, yuk, fellas. Typically there is something wrong when anything goes. Once again, I believe that anything should go, but I do not believe that it should just be ignored or universally excepted as "Meh." Use your free speech, but when yous a dick you should be called so, loudly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know, implying that a person's child is being molested by a grown man is such a funny way to start a show.
You have no sense of humor apparently.
I personally hope he starts with secret service men sleeping with Michelle and the girls while Barak is playing golf jokes. Man those will be funny.
Oh, ok maybe you do.
How about if he would have said "Better make sure your daughter is not getting ass raped by the Yankee Stadium groundskeeper with his special splinter free wooden rake?" Of course that's not funny, disrespectful and in poor taste, as much as Letterman was. Mine was farther, but hey, its still comedy!!! Yuk, yuk, fellas.
No, not if it isn't funny (or intended to be). If you did somehow make something like that into a joke it would probably be unacceptable on TV, but might be heard in a dingy stand-up act somewhere.
Once again, I believe that anything should go, but I do not believe that it should just be ignored or universally excepted as "Meh." Use your free speech, but when yous a dick you should be called so, loudly.
I think all public figures can expect to be the object of jokes from comedians1. Acting all hurt and upset about it is just ridiculous. 1Especially when they are ignoramuses vieing for the leadership of the country
Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no sense of humor apparently. Oh, ok maybe you do. No, not if it isn't funny (or intended to be). If you did somehow make something like that into a joke it would probably be unacceptable on TV, but might be heard in a dingy stand-up act somewhere. I think all public figures can expect to be the object of jokes from comedians1. Acting all hurt and upset about it is just ridiculous. 1Especially when they are ignoramuses vieing for the leadership of the country
This was Letterman crying out for attention because Conan O'Brien just took over for Leno that week and Letterman's ratings are falling.Let's not pretend that the first amendment is the real issue, it's not, this is all about a has-been doing something outrageous to try to remain remotely relevant.Trying to excuse it just makes you look foolish. 11Which with your political leaning, you are probably used to.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This was Letterman crying out for attention because Conan O'Brien just took over for Leno that week and Letterman's ratings are falling.Let's not pretend that the first amendment is the real issue, it's not, this is all about a has-been doing something outrageous to try to remain remotely relevant.Trying to excuse it just makes you look foolish. 11Which with your political leaning, you are probably used to.
What Artie Lange did was outrageous. Letterman merely told one crappy, tasteless joke. If it actually was bristol at the game instead of willow, this would have been a nonissue since she has made herself a public figure. (Where does she get these names by the way?)
Link to post
Share on other sites
What Artie Lange did was outrageous. Letterman merely told one crappy, tasteless joke. If it actually was bristol at the game instead of willow, this would have been a nonissue since she has made herself a public figure. (Where does she get these names by the way?)
Nope, kids of political figures should be off limits for a ton of reasons. They don't make themselves public figures.They get thrown into it.The republicans can teach you democrats a thing or two about class on this issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, kids of political figures should be off limits for a ton of reasons. They don't make themselves public figures.They get thrown into it.The republicans can teach you democrats a thing or two about class on this issue.
All this class you promised from the right turned out to be a load of fertilizer. The GOP has been every bit as bad a loser as the Dems were (the only difference being that conservatives appear to buy lots of bullets and guns when they are upset). And Chelsea Clinton took a much worse beating than this. Bristol Palin has absolutely made herself a public figure (as has Meghan McCain for that matter). you cant go around stumping for abstinence education (after giving birth as a teen, no less) and then expect to get a pass. Just like you cant write articles on cnn.com like Meghan McCain and then expect to be off limits.Sometimes they get thrown into it. Sometimes they jump in feet first.Democrats can teach Republicans a thing or two about not exploiting their children to show off Conservative family values or exploiting a joke about your daughter to make a stump speech about the rights of young women everywhere or exploiting your future son-in-law until he dumps your preggo daughter and then deciding to run him over with a bus in the press. We can also teach you the names of several good newspapers.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, kids of political figures should be off limits for a ton of reasons. They don't make themselves public figures.They get thrown into it.The republicans can teach you democrats a thing or two about class on this issue.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.htmlDuring the last few months, many established media outlets have decided to report innuendo and rumor about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, as long as they have a source they can cite (at least anonymously), or another media player has reported the same.But this new standard in the practice of journalism seemingly does not extend to other political figures, at least not media darlings like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Earlier this month, at a Republican Senate fund-raiser, McCain told a downright nasty joke making fun of Janet Reno, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton.The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But in several major newspapers, the joke itself was kept a secret. When McCain subsequently apologized to President Clinton, the Washington Post, in its personality section, noted the apology but said the joke "was too vicious to print."The Los Angeles Times, in its Life & Style section, provided an oblique rendering of the joke that did not fully convey its ugliness. When Maureen Dowd penned a column in the New York Times about the joke, she wrote that McCain "is so revered by the press that his disgusting jape was largely nudged under the rug." But Dowd chose not to relay the joke, either.The joke did appear in McCain's hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, and the Associated Press did report the joke in full, so everyone in the press had access to McCain's words. But by censoring themselves, the Post, the Times and others helped McCain deflect flak and preserved his status as a Republican presidential contender.Salon feels its readers deserve the unadulterated truth. Though no tape of McCain's quip has yet emerged, this is what he reportedly said:"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
Link to post
Share on other sites
All this class you promised from the right turned out to be a load of fertilizer. The GOP has been every bit as bad a loser as the Dems were (the only difference being that conservatives appear to buy lots of bullets and guns when they are upset). And Chelsea Clinton took a much worse beating than this. Bristol Palin has absolutely made herself a public figure (as has Meghan McCain for that matter). you cant go around stumping for abstinence education (after giving birth as a teen, no less) and then expect to get a pass. Just like you cant write articles on cnn.com like Meghan McCain and then expect to be off limits.Sometimes they get thrown into it. Sometimes they jump in feet first.Democrats can teach Republicans a thing or two about not exploiting their children to show off Conservative family values or exploiting a joke about your daughter to make a stump speech about the rights of young women everywhere or exploiting your future son-in-law until he dumps your preggo daughter and then deciding to run him over with a bus in the press. We can also teach you the names of several good newspapers.
Chelsea Clinton got a complete pass. ALL eight years her dad was in office sleeping with girls closer to her age than her mom.As will Obama's kids.The Bush twins were followed and paparazzied, Drunk jokes made about them as a steady supply on SNL and anytime a liberal comedian got a free mike night.Bristol was hounded by the press and is now a catch phrae joke about young teenage girls getting pregnant. She was never given any privacy with regards to her life by the leftisit press who cloak themselves with the catch phrase: "Conservative Family Values" to somehow excuse themselves from the reality that they are attacking children to hurt their parents. In fact most of the liberal press are totally okay with destroying children as long as they become a weight on the necks of their conservative parents.And Bristol was the daughter of the 2nd person of a losing ticket. Lucky for her her mom didn't win.The hypocrisy is limitless.Anytime you want to compare your confused memory of the past with reality I will be here for you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...