Bring It On!

What If You Were Mitt or Joe?

September 2nd, 2008 | by Windspike |

Just wondering at this point, given McSame’s super quality pick for Veep, what it might be that Mitt and Joe were feeling given they lost the post to Palin. Or any other of the possible Veeps on the short list, for that matter:

Two senior Republican officials close to Mitt Romney and Tim
Pawlenty said they had both been rudely strung along and now “feel manipulated.”

“They now know that they were used as decoys, well after McCain had decided not to pick them,” one Republican involved in the process said.

The subliminal message of McSame’s selection of Palin is that the others on the list were of a lesser quality. Imagine that? What could be so offensive about Mitt, Lieberman or the others that put Palin ahead of them? I wouldn’t want to guess.

The trouble is that there is a legion of self-righteous right wingers who were quick to label teens who were pregnant as something like the spawn of Satan, and now have jumped to the aid of McSame and Palin obviating their own hypocrisy. Of course, if you criticize Palin for her position, the reichwingers are in full tilt trying to spin you as some kind of loon. For example, just look at the title of this news paper article I found linked on johnmccain dot com:

Ignore the Chauvinists. Palin Has Real Experience.

So, if I don’t think that Palin is fit to be Veep, I’m a chauvinist by default? I don’t think so. Of course, those who were bashing Hillary would not stand for being labeled as such, but insist on flogging those who don’t like Palin with much more demonizing terminology.

Did you ever wonder why that when the GOP types get criticized about their decisions they feel they need to use derogatory labels to foist upon us their holier than thou stance? I’m constantly mystified as to that line of argument, but I understand the tactic. The reason they use it is because they have no plausible line of argument to pursue. With out slinging the hate, they have nothing on which to stand.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 5 Responses to “What If You Were Mitt or Joe?”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 2, 2008 | Reply

    One, if I were Mitt or Joe or Tim, I’d be upset too. McCain seems to have picked Palin purely because of political reasons. Those three and the others were expected, same old same old. Palin shook everybody up and took Obama, his convention speech and convention right off the news cycle and fired up conservatives and pro-lifers and opened up wallets of people who were not all that fired up about McCain or his positions.

    Since I am a Palin critic and don’t think of myself as a chauvinist, I don’t think it’s chauvinistic to criticize Palin as an unserious v-p pick unready to fill in the office if needs be. I mean unless your criticism is something like, “Hey, she’s a GIRL! Girls can’t be vice-presidents or presidents! Besides they’ve got kooties and all!” That would be chauvinistic…not to mention puerile.

    By the way, for future reference, “pinhead” in O’Reilly speak is not the equivalent of “something like the spawn of Satan”. Not even close. It means that, in some ways, they lack sense. Which not only makes sense but is recognized by society in all kinds of ways like 1. needing to be at least 18 to vote, 2. to serve on a jury, 3. to enter into valid and enforceable contracts, and 21 4. to buy liquor or smokes and on and on.

  3. By Windspike on Sep 2, 2008 | Reply


    As some one who doesn’t watch O’Reilly, I don’t get the nuanced understanding you convey. Thanks for clarifying. Of course, tone, tenor and flavor are sometimes lost on the internets - which is why I qualified my statement as “something like” rather than exactly as…

    Just a quick question for you and others, if you had your druthers, knowing what you know about the others on the short list, whom would you have rather McCain picked for Veep? Or, alternatively, is there some one else that didn’t even make the list that would have made more sense?

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 2, 2008 | Reply

    I think that Mitt would have had greater experience and gravitas but he’d have had the same effect on the evangelicals as V-P as he had on them as presidential nominee. That is to say, they’d have been less rather than more likely to vote for a McCain-Romney ticket than they would for McCain and a generic v-p. He’d have been a political liability even if he’d have been a more serious v-p pick. As for Lieberman, I think he’d have been a serious pick and might help bring in the Jewish vote and independent voters but, then again, maybe not. The joke would have been that they look like a pair of greeters at the nursing home. Romney would also have helped eliminate the age criticism in a way that Joe Lieberman would not have. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the others on the list to say who would have been a better pick.

    I’d have preferred it have been the guy from Law & Order. He was my preference in the GOP nomination race but I hear that he wasn’t interested in the job.

    And I don’t watch O’Reilly now and haven’t in maybe four or five years but pin-head is just his way of saying that someone lacks common sense in some way. It’s a standard descriptor that carries no particular religious flavor.

  5. By Chris Radulich on Sep 2, 2008 | Reply

    From the link O’Reilly link

    On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet.

    Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears.

    So has he denounced Palin yet?

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 2, 2008 | Reply

    I couldn’t say, Chris. As I say, I haven’t watched O’Reilly in years.

Post a Comment