Posts by Trevor Nicholls
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Rudy Giulani is on message today, or is he?
Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on the job training.
-
And I thought the son-in-law could at least have spit his gum out before taking to the stage.
Pitching to another demographic...
-
So... what do people make of The Speech?
I only saw about 2 minutes (rest of the household were too interested in Venus v Serena) but what I saw looked a bit.. wooden.. and I definitely caught a few yawns here and there in the heroically cheering audience. But maybe that was a bad patch.
-
"first on the list"
Pardon me Sage, I conflated your quote with something else I read earlier today. I'd better acknowledge that you didn't say this.
</redfaced> -
**The search process started in the spring.** McCain's vetting team was given a list of 20 names and Culvahouse's group prepared lengthy background books on each candidate, based primarily on a search of public records. Ultimately, the list of 20 was pared to six serious finalists, then to two, and finally to Palin. According to several campaign sources, Palin was on the list from the start.
"first on the list" - That must mean A for Alaska, right? I can't believe that this woman has been choice number 1 for six whole months.
"according to several campaign sources" - You just know they've got to be telling you the truth, right? And plenty of other campaign sources aren't on message.
I see that Palin was announced from the convention platform this morning as "Sarah Pawlenty". Most amusing...
-
From the "Christian right" blogosphere, showing the double-edged nature of McCain's gamble on Palin:
Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons. [...]
Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. [...]
She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply "was not going to miss out on that speech." A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain’s choice as pro-family. [...]
Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles. [...]
In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, "It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion." How pro-family is that?
and
The main concern is that it will send a mixed message that undermines their understanding of family values. They like her political positions, especially on abortion, but are concerned that the prominence of her position would undermine their witness concerning subordinate roles for women and their conviction that mothers should remain in the home and nurture their husbands and children.
Ironically, James Dobson, Richard Land and other vocal advocates for "family values" are also the most enthusiastic supporters of Sarah Palin.
Land's support for Palin is fairly strong evidence that the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention -- a takeover that was fueled by conservative opposition to the equal rights amendment [...] -- was more about politics than theology.
-
Huh? I was trying to say that as a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, I still managed to have the same instinctive reaction as Russell had, even though I wouldn't have had the same reaction had a daddy gone back to work so soon. And I see that as a flaw in my thinking.
Oh, I wasn't trying to say anything about you, Deborah. I just think it's funny that the Republican Party's token woman VP nominee - although clearly chosen to appeal to the righter end of the spectrum, the evangelical Daddy-is-the-head-of-the-house brigade - doesn't cook what Daddy shoots but shoots it herself, is the Governor not the Governess, and in almost every respect appeals to the men far more than to the women.
I can't believe that conservative women won't look at her and feel insanely jealous. Of course I've never been a conservative woman so the usual caveats apply...
-
Yeeeess... and I have to admit that it's my reaction too, but I know that I wouldn't have had the same reaction to a daddy heading back to work after three days. Those "this is what a mother ought to do" ideas are embedded very deeply.
Oh yeah, this motherhood-and-apple-pie Mom had the sort of pregnancy a man would have.
-
Please somebody interview Toni Street:
"So what's it like being surrounded by real journalists? Do you know you're an inspiration for thick blondes everywhere..."
-
And lets not forget, that while Iraq was a mistake originally, it hasn't turned out all that bad. The silence now from the left-wing media on Iraq says it all...
I'll pass over the two errors of grammar...
nothing much remains to criticise.
...and focus on the two superfluous words. I think you got it in three.