Page 1 of 1 pages
Talk about an angry white female?!? For all the feminist accusations about men keeping women from the most powerful office in the land, we now find out that only certain women who fit a certain political persuasion are really qualified. Interesting how those “qualifications” were kept secret until Sarah Palin came around. How can Susan Douglas teach communications with the hatred she espouses? I guess the adage that “Those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach” is alive and well at the University of Michigan School of Liberal Feminist Communications.
Posted by chev1958 on Oct 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Ms. Douglas does sound angry (not hateful), and expresses herself firmly. But, contrary to the post by chev1958 (a good year, but very dated!), the article is dead on target. In the current administration, knowledge is considered somehow contaminating, and Pres. Bush prefers not to deal with information or facts, just with advice from his inner circle. Clearly McCain/Palin represent a continuation of the old, failed policies and solutions, with the added danger that McCain is an angry man with an explosive temper and no interest in trying to reach negotiated agreement with both allies and enemies. Now if the media can only catch on that they aren’t witnessing a sporting event, where the result has no real significance, but an election that will influence the country, good or bad, for decades to come.
Posted by rwk2008 on Oct 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Does Obama need to know how many states there are? Does conducting his campaign equal administrative experience of running a state?
This article reaffirms that liberals always try to preserve caricature and characterization over re-evaluation. And I’ve always wondered why extreme conflicts of caricature should be something charges to the subject of the caricature. “Hey! John McCain needs to reconcile my overwrought caricatures!!”
I know that it is important to stick to the “More of the same” party line, and at the same time pillory the conservative opposition (that Bush lost the backing of years ago) for being so amenable to government solutions. But, just a review of some of McCain’s campaign would tell you that McCain might not try to alienate the “government-loathing” conservatives, but he’s losing their vote, because he’s *not* government-loathing. (He was boo-ed at a Michigan event for proposing government solutions in the form of carbon credits and healthcare.)
Meanwhile Palin’s comment is taken as if she was arguing that she has *sufficient* exposure to seamlessly take up diplomacy. When she was actually responding to the argument that she was from a backwater state that had no exposure to international politics. When pressed with this misfitting characterization, she pointed out that the Alaskan governor has to deal with the Russia which is so close Alaskans can see them from an island.
Meanwhile, when Obama questioned her administrative ability as mayor of a town of 1200 (totally ignoring the governorship), he contrasted his administrative skills of running national campaign. No “aggressive ignorance” there.
I also have to laugh that you’re incensed that more people don’t agree with you on who won the debate. Not enough people agree with me about who’s responsible for Fanny and Freddie fiasco as well, and want to elect the guy who received the biggest flow of campaign money from those organizations (and who’s #2 overall) to address it.
I’m supposed to be respectful, so I won’t ask the question about what “aggressive ignorance” might mean in regard of your possible retirement from writing this column. Is “Dumb and Dumber” “respectful” Is “respectful” even in view, here?
Posted by axeman on Oct 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
The Bush administration engineered the housing/credit bubble in order to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise they would have had to raise taxes, raise the interest rates and re-institute the draft. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were brought on board four years later, with Democratic demands of comprehensive oversight and regulation, which the Republicans, as usual, refused.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Major Major, with all due respect, you have the parties in reverse. The Clinton administration began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards so more lower income people could buy houses. You could go all the way back to the Carter administration, but that’s a stretch even for me. In 2004, the Democrats were standing up for Freddie and Fannie and attacking regulators who were issuing warnings about those organizations. The video is all over YouTube. Maybe you should check it out and get your facts straight.
Posted by chev1958 on Oct 9, 2008 at 7:02 AM
OK, Chevy. Have it your way: the Clinton administration may have engineered the credit bubble to mitigate the damage of the dotcom bubble, but the Bush administration reverse-engineered it to finance their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On a side note, I’m getting tired of listening to conservatives blame the victims of foreclosure for the crimes of those who deregulated the financial industry for private profit. It’s sort of like referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima. The Democrats have been tacking to starboard to stay in the race, given the racist foundations of the Southern strategy, but the Republicans have been the ones who typically promoted the benefits of deregulation and tax cuts.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 10, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Talk about an angry white female?!? For all the feminist accusations about men keeping women from the most powerful office in the land, we now find out that only certain women who fit a certain political persuasion are really qualified. Interesting how those “qualifications” were kept secret until Sarah Palin came around. How can Susan Douglas teach communications with the hatred she espouses? I guess the adage that “Those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach” is alive and well at the University of Michigan School of Liberal Feminist Communications.
Ms. Douglas does sound angry (not hateful), and expresses herself firmly. But, contrary to the post by chev1958 (a good year, but very dated!), the article is dead on target. In the current administration, knowledge is considered somehow contaminating, and Pres. Bush prefers not to deal with information or facts, just with advice from his inner circle. Clearly McCain/Palin represent a continuation of the old, failed policies and solutions, with the added danger that McCain is an angry man with an explosive temper and no interest in trying to reach negotiated agreement with both allies and enemies. Now if the media can only catch on that they aren’t witnessing a sporting event, where the result has no real significance, but an election that will influence the country, good or bad, for decades to come.
Does Obama need to know how many states there are? Does conducting his campaign equal administrative experience of running a state?
This article reaffirms that liberals always try to preserve caricature and characterization over re-evaluation. And I’ve always wondered why extreme conflicts of caricature should be something charges to the subject of the caricature. “Hey! John McCain needs to reconcile my overwrought caricatures!!”
I know that it is important to stick to the “More of the same” party line, and at the same time pillory the conservative opposition (that Bush lost the backing of years ago) for being so amenable to government solutions. But, just a review of some of McCain’s campaign would tell you that McCain might not try to alienate the “government-loathing” conservatives, but he’s losing their vote, because he’s *not* government-loathing. (He was boo-ed at a Michigan event for proposing government solutions in the form of carbon credits and healthcare.)
Meanwhile Palin’s comment is taken as if she was arguing that she has *sufficient* exposure to seamlessly take up diplomacy. When she was actually responding to the argument that she was from a backwater state that had no exposure to international politics. When pressed with this misfitting characterization, she pointed out that the Alaskan governor has to deal with the Russia which is so close Alaskans can see them from an island.
Meanwhile, when Obama questioned her administrative ability as mayor of a town of 1200 (totally ignoring the governorship), he contrasted his administrative skills of running national campaign. No “aggressive ignorance” there.
I also have to laugh that you’re incensed that more people don’t agree with you on who won the debate. Not enough people agree with me about who’s responsible for Fanny and Freddie fiasco as well, and want to elect the guy who received the biggest flow of campaign money from those organizations (and who’s #2 overall) to address it.
I’m supposed to be respectful, so I won’t ask the question about what “aggressive ignorance” might mean in regard of your possible retirement from writing this column. Is “Dumb and Dumber” “respectful” Is “respectful” even in view, here?
The Bush administration engineered the housing/credit bubble in order to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise they would have had to raise taxes, raise the interest rates and re-institute the draft. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were brought on board four years later, with Democratic demands of comprehensive oversight and regulation, which the Republicans, as usual, refused.
Major Major, with all due respect, you have the parties in reverse. The Clinton administration began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards so more lower income people could buy houses. You could go all the way back to the Carter administration, but that’s a stretch even for me. In 2004, the Democrats were standing up for Freddie and Fannie and attacking regulators who were issuing warnings about those organizations. The video is all over YouTube. Maybe you should check it out and get your facts straight.
OK, Chevy. Have it your way: the Clinton administration may have engineered the credit bubble to mitigate the damage of the dotcom bubble, but the Bush administration reverse-engineered it to finance their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On a side note, I’m getting tired of listening to conservatives blame the victims of foreclosure for the crimes of those who deregulated the financial industry for private profit. It’s sort of like referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima. The Democrats have been tacking to starboard to stay in the race, given the racist foundations of the Southern strategy, but the Republicans have been the ones who typically promoted the benefits of deregulation and tax cuts.
register a new account »Posting Security