It’s really sickening watching all those evil Democrats trot out their families, their young kids even, just to use them as political props. They really need to stop that cynical behavior. They’re rich enough. Can’t they leave their kids at home with the nanny? I mean seriously, look at them!
Al Gore getting slobbery
There’s Al Gore getting freaky-deaky with his wife. Get a room! And quit using your wife as a campaign prop! I mean, seriously. That’s just heartless. And wierd. And conniving.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden and families
And here we have Barack Obama and Joe Biden using their families as props. And Barack Obama has the evil audacity to use his own very young daughters in such a sleazy way! And his wife Michelle, instead of protecting her children from being abused like this as any loving mother should, aids and abets this horrific child abuse! It’s disgusting.
There’s Bill and Hillary Clinton disgracefully using their young daughter as a political prop! How downright vile of them to debase their daughter Chelsea like that!
Al Gore and his family on the red carpet
Look, it’s Al Gore again! And this time he’s using his entire family, children and all, as political props! It’s so over the top it’s ridiculous! Think of the damage he’s done to his family by trotting them out there in such an obviously cynical and self-aggrandizing way!
All these Democrats should be shamed into hiding. Every last one of them. How dare they use their families as props like that. No loving family would ever dream of doing such a thing. It’s sickening, and they are all in desparate need of psychological counseling.
See what I did there?
_________
Cross-Post
See what I did there?
We sure did.
What pho said.
(and I recommend that anyone following JH’s link put some food in their stomach, first, because John Nolte at disgraced conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Journalism” is serving up a whole lotta whine, over there (Palin whine, no less.)… Just sour grapes, if ya ask me…
Actually, repsac, Andrew Breitbart is not disgraced at all. His words have been quite well vindicated. But you on the Left seem to love playing the “that’s different” game when it comes to politicians and their families, as noted by your ridiculous statement. Also meaning you’re just a bunch of hypocrites, but that’s something we already knew. You make a mockery of yourself and out yourself as a hypocrite and you aren’t even self-aware enough to know you did it.
You’re certainly welcome to your opinions, John… But needless to say, I don’t share all that many of ‘em… I suppose that’s to be expected, though…
As I said earlier, I neither can no do speak for “the Left,” whoever they are, but I’m certainly willing to discuss anything a particular person has said (me, or anyone else), should you wish to be a tad more specific with your criticism… But if it’s all gonna be “the left’s ridiculous mockpocrisy,” or whatever, you’ll have to forgive me for not playing along. Homie don’t play dat, left or right…
Actually, repsac, Andrew Breitbart is not disgraced at all. His words have been quite well vindicated. But you on the Left seem to love playing the “that’s different” game when it comes to politicians and their families, as noted by your ridiculous statement. Also meaning you’re just a bunch of hypocrites, but that’s something we already knew. You make a mockery of yourself and out yourself as a hypocrite and you aren’t even self-aware enough to know you did it.
That’s a wholly dishonest, hate-filled insulting attack based solely on partisan gamesmanship and completely lacking in truth or integrity.
Dana, please remove the comment dated 5 May 2011 at 22:18 as a personal insult.
Wait, Republicans don’t use their families? Someone tell George Bush and Dick Cheney and John McCain. They didn’t get the memo.
Nope, J.Goff didn’t see what I did. I would say “nice try” but it wasn’t.
I hesitate to bring this up–
–and wouldn’t, had I not been drug in by Pho’s comment
–and won’t again, regardless of the outcome, unless until I’m drug in again, by being addressed on the subject, directly (either via another comment on my behalf, like Pho’s, or by a discussion on the subject where I’m cited by name)
But, while I appreciate the defense of my good name by my fine Phoenician brother, I find the whole “please remove this comment” thing going on ’round here to be “pearl-clutching” nonsense, for lack of a better term. I’m from the school that says folks who engage in personal attack are showing they lack a reasoned response (or that they’re just mean for the sake of being mean), and thus my usual response is to point these things out. Dana’s got a different idea, which is fine by me, as this is his house, not mine. But one thing I’m sure of is that he knows what it is he believes counts as personal attack, and that he doesn’t much need folks tattling on each other.
Far be it from me to tell y’all what to do–except perhaps where I’m concerned–but it’s somethin’ I’ve been thinkin’ about, every time I see one of these “well, I never…” comments. Invest in a bottle of smelling salts in case you feel faint, and let Dana do his thing, moderation-wise.
Or, keep doing what you’re doing, if you must. But please leave me out of it, thanks.
(sans soapbox, and draw curtain)
But, while I appreciate the defense of my good name by my fine Phoenician brother, I find the whole “please remove this comment” thing going on ’round here to be “pearl-clutching” nonsense, for lack of a better term.
Dana laid down a law. He claims that he intends to apply it objectively.
Pointing out that he is not doing so demonstrates clearly with whom the problems in his blog lie. I don’t expect him to apply his rules fairly or objectively – but I’m going to keep pointing out where he isn’t.
I would say “nice try” but it wasn’t.
You’re right, I didn’t see that link. Then again, look who you linked to. I’ll read Breitbart when he apologizes to Shirley Sherrod. Maybe. He’s not a trustworthy source for news. That said, screwing with people’s family for news is a time honored tradition on the right. I’m not sure you want to call out the left for turnabout,, given your side’s propensity for it. Remember Obama’s father, and the stink made about him? What about Roger Clinton?
Sullivan is 125% sleaze. Everyone thinks it’s just The National Enquirer was sleaze newspaper, but The Enquirer outed John Edwards while the LSM swept it under the carpet.
There is no need for Breitbart to apologize to Shirley Sherrod. But of course you miss the entire point of that original article by not actually paying attention to the words in that original article — the words that pointed to the members of the NAACP who were cheering on Sherrod’s recounting of her race-based decisionmaking before she recanted of them (sorta). Breitbart showed the NAACP for what it is, a rather racist organization at the top, by showing Sherrod’s words and the NAACP crowd’s approval of Sherrod’s recounting of her racially motivated unethical actions.
But thank you, J.Goff, for accidentally admitting the lamestream media is part of the Left-Wing smear campaign. And, no, you won’t find the Right viciously attacking Obama’s daughters like the Left does Palin’s. And, no, the Right never viciously attacked Chelsea Clinton like the Left does Bristol and Willow and Trig. So, no, J.Goff, I’m not exercising tu quoque but rather pointing out the stark difference between the Left’s vicious personal attacks on children of opponents and the Right’s leaving the children out of it.
Right, John, because you said so?
Of course, that’s only Glen Beck (mocked Malia’s intelligence), so what should we expect. Google “attacks on Obama children” and Rush is alleged to have followed suit shortly thereafter Beck. And you will find out that McCain (called them “brats”) has also done so.
These are anecdotal, nonetheless despicable. I think if we did the research we would find whackos on both political extremes who behave in this manner.
Nice, Perry, that you chose to leave out the link. Also, Perry, I highly doubt Beck was hitting the kids but rather hitting Obama for telling another of his fake “I got a letter from a 3-year-old, scared out of his mind kid (who happens to write like a college junior)” stories, but plugging his own daughters into the story.
Just from the looks of it, looks like you chose Media Mutters (who lets just enough of the facts slip out to make their abject dishonesty believable) as your source. Which might be why you refused to give the linkage. Typical, actually.
And, no, the Right never viciously attacked Chelsea Clinton like the Left does Bristol and Willow and Trig.
Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh’s TV show–”Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?” And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.
Just from the looks of it, looks like you chose Media Mutters (who lets just enough of the facts slip out to make their abject dishonesty believable) as your source.
Because people like you prefer to rely on the likes of Drudge and Michelle Malkin?
There were also the many attempts by our friends on the left to use Mary Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Richard Cheney, as a political point against the Bush Administration because Miss Cheney is homosexual. There were the attacks on Jenna and Barbara Bush for drinking before they turned 21.