Olbermann And Maddow On The Right's Jihad On 12 Year Old Boy
I'm a few days behind the loop on this one but Maddow and Olbermann are well on the money here. Where is the limit when you find yourself attacking a twelve year old boy who has just come out of a coma? The Republicans really have hit a new low...
Tags:
4 comments:
Personally going after the boy is of course wrong and not to be condoned. I stress the "personally" part. Equally wrong was the Democrats using him for political theater. Next thing they'll be doing is using handicapped and impoverished orphans to try and deliver their political messages for them. It's obvious they've run out of sympathetic messengers in their own party, so I don't see where they'd have much of a choice.
You think going after a 12 year old boy - recently recovering from an accident - is wrong. Good, We are in agreement.
Although you appear to be, nevertheless, understanding of this Republican desire to Swift Boat anyone - and I mean literally anyone - who ever opposes their policies.
The SCHIP programme was about children, so why is it "political theatre" to use a child as an example of that programme? What other example could one use other than dry statistics?
The Republicans recently used kids in an advert for abstinence before marriage, did you attack the Republicans for using children to carry that message?
Although you appear to be, nevertheless, understanding of this Republican desire to Swift Boat anyone - and I mean literally anyone - who ever opposes their policies.
Not sure where you could possiblt have come up with that one.
why is it "political theatre" to use a child as an example of that programme
It's political theater because they chose to use this family to deliver the official Democrat response to a speech. Immediately following every Presidential speech like this one, each party delivers a political and partisan response to that speech. Using anything other than the partisan party faithful to deliver this response is something that's not done. How would you react if the Republican response to one of these speeches was given by a soldier? That would be highly inappropriate to my way of thinking, and quite definitely political theater. The purpose would be to try to make their response immune to dispute by associating that message with an unassailable figure. This makes it just a ploy and not befitting even the low standards that the parties have set for themselves.
The Republicans recently used kids in an advert for abstinence before marriage, did you attack the Republicans for using children to carry that message?
No, as the children were not used to deliver the official party response to a speech. If the Dems wanted to use this family in an ad campaign, more power to them. Unfortunately they chose to use them to deliver the official party response to a speech.
How would you react if the Republican response to one of these speeches was given by a soldier?
Oh we've had that. He was called Petraeus. And that was in response to a war, not just a speech.
The purpose would be to try to make their response immune to dispute by associating that message with an unassailable figure. This makes it just a ploy and not befitting even the low standards that the parties have set for themselves.
I know what you mean. Imagine if someone made a terrible word play on his name. It would be unthinkable for Bush to employ such a person though wouldn't it?
Post a Comment