Tag: Sarah Palin

What Really Matter to the Media

We’ve frequently complained about the media’s reluctance to cover Obama fuckups and scandals. From IRS harassment to the inflation of Obamacare numbers, they’ve shown a reticence to take him on until they basically have no choice.

Well, you’ll be pleased to find out that the media has found a scandal they can get exercised about: some staffer saying something dumb:

Five days after Elizabeth Lauten published a Facebook post criticizing the outfits worn by President Barack Obama’s daughters, the previously obscure Republican Hill staffer is being inundated with threatening messages and major media outlets are pouring resources into tracking her moves and digging into her past.

Two network news vans camped outside of Lauten’s parents home in North Carolina on Tuesday, one day after she resigned as communication director for Rep. Steven Fincher (R., Tenn.) due to the controversy. Lauten was not at the house.

That morning, the Washington Post also assigned one of its foreign affairs correspondents to comb through an archive of columns Lauten wrote for her college newspaper in 2006 and 2007. The investigation found that Lauten had supported intervention in Darfur, criticized Facebook as an invasion of privacy, and warned people against “making race an issue.”

Lauten must have done something really awful to merit this kind of attention. Here is the entirety of what she said:

Dear Sasha and Malia, I get you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re part of the First Family, try showing a little class. At least respect the part you play. Then again your mother and father don’t respect their positions very much, or the nation for that matter, so I’m guessing you’re coming up a little short in the ‘good role model’ department. Nevertheless, stretch yourself. Rise to the occasion. Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at a bar. And certainly don’t make faces during televised public events.

The response was a storm of criticism and threats on social media, segments on major news networks and a resignation from her job.

Look. I get that the children of politicians are off limits. I’ve never said anything about Obama’s daughters. And there really hasn’t been much to say. They’ve been mostly out of sight and have always crossed me as fine young ladies. They did have a bit of “daaaaad” body language going on during the turkey pardoning. I joked about it (at Obama’s expense) but I didn’t see anything worthy of criticizing. Lauten’s comment crosses me as a dumb over-reaction to nothing.

But what is the reaction to her comment but a dumb over-reaction to nothing. Lauten’s comment is not racist or particularly cruel. It’s certainly not as harsh as the kind of criticisms that were frequently thrown at, say, the Bush daughters or John Robert’s kids:

Hemingway:

Now, Lauten is in communications and her job presumably included an assumption that she wouldn’t embarrass her boss. Besides, in a city where you can keep your job even if you’re involved in serious scandals at the IRS, State Department, Veterans Affairs or the Department of Justice, an actual job loss is refreshing, in its own way. She even gave a full-throated apology — within hours of the initial post — for being mean, not one of these “I’m sorry if” constructions that politicians frequently use.

Still, what in the world was the media doing reporting on this non-story and firing up the mob? The Washington Free Beacon reported that “major media outlets are pouring resources into tracking her moves and digging into her past.” This included two network news vans camping outside of her parents’ home in North Carolina and a search of Lauten’s leaked juvenile records and college writings.

This is insanity and each and every person involved should be ashamed of himself or herself. If you were involved, you are a big part of what’s wrong with journalism and you need to check yourself.

Hemingway goes on to compare WaPo’s non-coverage of the Kermit Gosnell mass murder and their non-coverage of the HRC head’s arrest for child molestation charges to nearly a dozen articles about someone no one had ever heard of sniping on Facebook. She notes the hours of media coverage against their non-coverage of Jonathan Gruber. She notes, as I did, their hypocrisy when it came to criticizing the Bush daughters. Or Bristol Palin. Or Willow Palin. Hell, the Left Wing Echosphere just erupted in a huge feeding frenzy over a drunken brawl the Palin family got into because … Palin! The gleefully played audio of Bristol tearfully talking to the cops.

I have really come to hate these social media jihads against people who say something dumb. We all say dumb things. Probably thousands of people have said something dumber or meaner than what Lauten said. But all it takes is for one comment to “go viral” and someone’s life gets wrecked.

Enough. It’s one thing to call someone out and ask for an apology. It’s another to hound them relentlessly. With someone in a position of real power, fire away. But let’s stop singling out random individuals for unending harassment because their particular dumb comment, in the sea of dumb comments out there, happened to get our attention.

The Palin Kerfuffle

I won’t link to or detail it. Google can help you there if you’re interested. But a couple of months ago, a certain segment of blogosphere reacted with what I can only describe as undisguised glee at reports of a fight the Palin family got into. The adjective being flung about were things like “trashy” and “low-class”.

As I’m sure you’re aware, I have no love for Palin. But this crossed me from day one ugly muck-raking against someone who is not a candidate for any political office. It was reveling in dirt for the revelings sake. It was sliming a disliked political figure based on partial information and innuendo.

Well, now audio tapes have come out of a crying Bristol talking to police. And the Left Wing Echosphere — including Palin Nutter Andrew Sullivan — are reacting with unrestrained joy to a description of what, as Noah Roathman points out, can only be described as an assault:

The overwhelming sense of superiority some in the press feel toward the Palins simply clouds their better judgment. Costello would surely see the error of her ways if she were to read her disparate reactions to these two strikingly similar events [this and the Ray Rice assault], but, in the heat of the moment, she did not see Sarah Palin’s daughter as a women who had endured a physical assault; she saw her as a caricature worthy of mockery.

No charges were filed in this case. And it’s not clear what touched off the brawl or to what extent the family was involved in it (there are witness who claim Bristol was punching the party host). But regardless of how “trashy” the Palins might or might not have been acting and regardless of how involved they were in in the brawl, I don’t think the reaction would be the same if this were a recording of some Democrat’s kid, do you?

The Impeachment Canard

Over the course of Obama’s Presidency, there have been occasional rumblings to impeach him. These rumblings got a little attention a few weeks ago when Sarah Palin — who has no official position with the GOP — called for Obama to be impeached. But for the most part, the idea is being ignored. Conservatives are well aware that Democrats control enough of the Senate to block anything and that an impeachment fight would do little to benefit the country or them (even assuming appropriate “high crimes and misdemeanors” could be identified to fit the bill). You can peruse Hot Air, NRO, The Daily Caller, Town Hall … you’ll find little apart from shrugging. Conservative just aren’t that obsessed with the idea.

You know who is obsessed with the idea? Liberals:

Consider, for example, the Sunlight Foundation’s Capitol Words database, which tracks words spoken in the House and Senate. So far in July, there have been 10 mentions of the term “impeachment” in Congress and four others of the term “impeach.” Eleven of the 14 mentions have been made by Democratic rather than Republican members of Congress, however.

Impeachment chatter has also become common on cable news. On Fox News this month, Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, called for Obama’s impeachment, for instance. But for every mention of impeachment on Fox News in July, there have been five on liberal-leaning MSNBC.

In July, Fox News mentioned impeachment 95 times, or about three times a day. MSNBC mentioned it 448 times. And the trend was only going up at the end of the month.

Now why is this becoming such a big thing among liberals? Well, need you ask:

The Democrats’ congressional campaign arm pulled in $2.1 million in online donations over the weekend — the best four-day haul of the current election cycle — largely propelled by fundraising pitches tied to speculation that House Republicans could pursue the impeachment of President Obama.

Democrats have consistently used impeachment — a prospect that has been floated by several prominent conservatives but has not been embraced by most of the Republican establishment — to fill their campaign coffers, and their polling has shown that fear of an impeachment attempt as well as the House GOP’s efforts to sue Obama have the potential to drive midterm voter turnout on the left.

Ding! Or maybe I should say “Ka-ching!”

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, of course. For as long as I can remember, the Democrats have run on the platform that the evil Republicans are going to take away social security, gut Medicare, start World War III, send your job to Mexico, destroy the environment, impeach Obama and cancel Arrested Development. Fear is what they do; security is what they offer. And both are lies.

Now the Democrats and their defenders will point out that it was Republicans who first raised this idea. And that’s true. But the GOP leadership and most conservative pundits almost immediately dismissed it. The Democrats will also point out that the GOP made a potential impeachment of Bush an issue in 2006. That’s also true. But as Silver points out, the disparity in concern over the issue wasn’t nearly as dramatic (374 mentions for Fox against 206 for MSNBC over the first seven months of the year). Nor did it reach fever pitch this call has. Moreover, the Democrats actually introduced articles of impeachment against Bush in 2008, something I don’t see the Republicans doing any time soon.

It tells you how thin the veneer of confidence is among Democrats that the mere whisper of impeachment from a Fox News pundit can send them into this kind of tizzy. It’s going to be very ugly when they lose power.

Debate Thoughts

I sort of watched tonight’s debate, joining in about half an hour in and catching up on my RSS feed while listening. Here are a few thoughts. First, the candidates:

  • Herman Cain seems to have peaked. He wasn’t nearly as persuasive as he was in the last debate and he had difficulty on the Muslim loyalty question. He really needed to stand out tonight and he didn’t.
  • Michelle Bachmann is a serious candidate — far more serious than Sarah Palin. She’s better on the issues, smarter and more confident in her knowledge. I don’t like her positions at all. But I think she could end up as a vice-presidential candidate. I was surprised by how well she carried herself.
  • Much as I like Ron Paul, he seems tired and not nearly as refreshing as he was in 2008. There are times when he’ll say something that makes me cheer and I hope he sticks around for a while. Think of him as the libertarian conscience of the GOP.
  • When it comes to Rick Santorum, I’m not objective. The guy just annoys the fuck out of me.
  • Tim Pawlenty seems like a nice guy and his candidacy reminds me a bit of Huckabee’s. But he seems to keep getting lost in the crowd. Every time he spoke, I was like, “Oh, yeah. T-Paw is there. Huh.”
  • Newt occasionally said something interesting to wistfully remind of his early days, when he seemed likely to transform our government. As as Presidential candidate, he’s toast.
  • Mitt Romney is clearly the front-runner even though his rivals don’t seem to realize it. He was poised and presidential. He made me cringe when he got into social issues. But I still think he will win the nomination if his organizational skills are anything. He and Pawlenty were the most sane and are therefore the most likely to win the nomination. Despite the rantings of the Left, the GOP does not nominate demagogues for President. McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Goldwater, Eisenhower … all of these guys were in the conservative mainstream.
  • The one guy who I most missed was Gary Johnson. Johnson really impressed me in the first debate and I think his voice would have been wonderful in this one. He’s a saner version of Ron Paul.

    As for the issues … well, there wasn’t a lot of time to get into substance and the moderator seemed uninterested. In that situation, the debate degenerated into talking points. The culture war issues distressed me, especially the support for the Federal Marriage Amendment — the GOP’s current attempt to replace the so-called Southern Strategy as their cultural albatross. They seemed to be all over the place on the economy. The only thing I heard clearly was that whatever Obama was doing was wrong. That’s not a policy. The only one who seemed to really have a grasp of the issues was Romney, but that probably has more to do with his polish as a candidate.

    Hopefully future debates will allow longer answers and get into substance. A better format with this big a field might be to have two four-way debates among the eight candidates. Toss an issue out and let them go at it for half an hour. Then we’ll see who knows his ass from his elbow.

    The E-mail Circus

    Of all the media feeding frenzies we have enjoyed the last few years, there are few that compare to what happened when the Alaskan government finally released Sarah Palin’s e-mails. The media crowd-sourced relentlessly, begging readers to dig through the e-mails to find something, anything. But, as much as I love transparency, this exercise was pointless. Even Palin nemesis Joe McGinnis admitted as much, noting that 2500 of the e-mails were redacted — the choice of redaction being made by Palin’s lieutenant governor. Did anyone imagine anything remotely interesting would be in them? Assuming there was anything interesting to begin with? The worst thing there was that they did not redact the names, addresses and phone numbers of people who e-mailed criticisms to the governor.

    I’m afraid my thinking is close to that of Matt Welch:

    It seemed the former governor of the 47th-most populous state in the union, a woman who holds no elected office now and almost assuredly will not again anytime soon, had thousands of e-mails from her 21-month tenure data-dumped onto the public.

    Transparency advocates doubtlessly breathed a sigh of satisfaction that sunlight-disinfectant was being applied to a government figure. And people with any sense of political proportion were left with an additional thought: When is this journalistic scrutiny going to be applied to politicians who wield actual power?

    He specifically notes the lack of media attention paid to Obama’s factually challenged statement on the auto-maker bailout, a statement that blew out Factcheck’s bullshit-o-meter. He also contrasts the attention they’ve devoted to Palin’s death panel claims against the President’s bald-faced lies on keeping your healthcare plan if you liked it, standing up to healthcare interests and getting a good score from the CBO.

    This is why I don’t blog about Sarah Palin (much). She is, to some extent, a distraction. All of the GOP candidates are. The first primary is eight months away. There are six hundred things that have to happen before we even know who the top candidates are (my money is still on Romney).

    Even the Weiner thing wasn’t this irrelevant — he is at least a sitting member of Congress. But going through Sarah Palin’s selected e-mails hoping to find something juicy? Please. If Sarah Palin is closer to a reality TV star than a politician, as many claim, what does this make the e-mail feeding frenzy? Paparazzi crap.

    There are things going on right fucking now that need to have their bullshit peeled away. We have a debt crisis and three wars and a Democratic establishment more interested in scaring the shit out of people than finding solutions. We have a President openly deceiving us about his economic policies. Doesn’t that warrant a little bit of a mention? I’m not saying ignore Palin, but maybe devote a tenth of the resources being used on her to cover the White House and the Senate?

    Thank you.

    The Rightness of Being Wrong

    Last week, Politifact tackled the assertion of Mitt Romney (among others) that Barack Obama went on an “apology tour” criticizing America. I’ve already addressed the bullshit that Obama said he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. But the apology tour is nonsense as well.

    Here, we’re checking Romney’s statement that Obama “has apologized for what he deems to be American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision” and a host of other reasons. If you think American presidents should never admit to any sort of error at any time, you might find yourself in philosophical agreement with Romney’s criticisms. We set out to discover whether Obama really had apologized in his speeches, and what he was apologizing for. But in our review of his words, we came up short. Yes, there is criticism in some of his speeches, but it’s typically leavened by praise for the United States and its ideals, and often he mentions other countries and how they have erred as well. There’s not a full-throated, sincere apology in the bunch. And so we rate Romney’s statement False.

    The thing about the apology tour is that, if you read Obama’s speeches, he hasn’t been apologizing for America. He’s been acknowledging what he sees as mis-steps in language far less apologetic than that used by Bush or Clinton or Reagan. What pisses off his critics is that he’s been publicly refuting the policies of last Administration. But rather than address this head on or acknowledge that the last Administration screwed the pooch, they simply say he’s “apologizing for America”. It’s this season’s “not supporting the troops”. And it’s nonsense. Every single speech has been built around a vigorous defense and laudation of America’s virtues. To be frank, the Republicans’ recent tendency to side with Israel against the Administration is more of an “apology tour” than anything Obama has done.

    So why do I bring this up? Who give a shit? Well, something about the whole “apology tour” nonsense has bothered me since it slithered into talk radio and then GOP talking points. And I think the trivial events of the last week — Weiner’s wiener and Sarah Palin’s muffing of the Paul Revere story — have helped me finally put my finger on what bothers me so much about it. Easterbrook:

    These are merely the last week’s examples of a troubling tendency among public figures — refusal to admit being wrong. Just as lying about what you did may be worse than what you did, refusing to admit an error may be worse than the error itself.

    All human beings occasionally are wrong — trust me, I’ve had plenty of experience! Honest admission of error makes a person upright and sympathetic. Refusing to admit error, by contrast, suggests deviousness or even megalomania. The sort of person who huffs and puffs and refuses to admit a mistake does not belong in a leadership position.

    In the era of YouTube and Twitter, it’s often easy to obtain the evidence of public error. That makes it all the more creepy when politicians stare into the camera and deny that they’ve made a mistake.

    Yet we’re surrounded by politicians who deny their mistakes. In recent history, presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton denied significant personal errors: one lost the White House as a result, the other nearly did. (I will skip the many instances in which public leaders would not admit to mistakes because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that refusal was in the national interest.)

    Anthony Weiner could have made most of his problems go away by simply admitting that he’d done something dumb. Sarah Palin could have just said she was tired and flustered by the media pestering her in a line instead of doubling down with more historical inaccuracy. And the same applies to every other politician — from Tony Blair to Chris Christie — who tries to pretend that he hasn’t fucked up.

    And that’s what bothers me about the apology tour meme. It’s an encapsulation of our national refusal to acknowledge mistakes — personal, party or national. It’s so rare that a politician owns up to stupidity that it’s notable when it happens. In the first GOP debate, one of the more remarkable moments was Pawlenty’s mea culpa on cap and trade.

    This Orwellian mentality — of never admitting mistakes, never acknowledging errors, always saying you were really right even when you were clearly wrong is not just annoying — it’s dangerous. One of the biggest obstacles to fixing our political system is the refusal to admit that a policy has failed. We make bad decisions and then we compound our mistakes with a ridiculous stubbornness — a belief that sticking to bad decisions somehow proves our manliness and stepping back from them is a sign of weakness.

    During the early 90’s, when welfare reform was being debated, a huge obstacle to fixing the system was the absolute refusal of liberals to believe that giving people money can’t erase poverty. Welfare had to be underfunded or undermined by evil Republicans — they simply couldn’t admit that it had been a bad idea. The biggest problem with our public schools is a stubborn refusal to admit that a politically-run, union-controlled education system is fundamentally dysfunctional. Our War on Drugs continues because of the refusal of the drug warriors to admit that you can’t get people off the shit by tossing them in jail. The War in Iraq almost reeled out of control because of the Administration’s refusal — until they lost an election — to admit that we didn’t have enough boots on the ground. Our attempts to fix Medicare and Social Security are running aground on the ridiculous belief that we can’t change a system simply because we’ve had it around for 75 years.

    This mentality has been enhanced by the “us against them” media cycle. Admitting to mistakes also means admitting that your evil evil opponents were right about something and then hearing them crow about it on MSNBC and the blogosphere for the next week. Anything but that!

    Admitting errors is not a sign of weakness; it’s refusing to do so that’s a sign of weakness. Totalitarian regimes are constantly revising history, flushing old policies down the memory hole and editing pictures to show that they have always been right, they have never erred, they have always been at war with Oceania and Trotsky never existed. It is a fundamental strength of our Republic that we don’t flush failed policies away, we don’t pretend the past never happened, that we don’t pretend we’re perfect and always have been. We admit that slavery was mistake, that the massacre of Native Americans was terrible, that Jim Crowe was crime and that the welfare state was a failure.

    One of the key moments that ended our disastrous experiment in prohibition was a letter from John Rockefeller acknowledging that the policy he had fought so hard for was a mistake. The turning point of the Civil War happened because Lincoln abandoned the generals who’d failed him. The Iraq War turned because Bush finally admitted we needed more troops. Reagan began tackling the deficit by admitting he’d lowered taxes too much. American history has been defined by people acknowledging mistakes and changing course.

    I would have thought more of Weiner if he’d immediately copped to the pictures and admitted it was a stupid thing to do. I would have thought more of Palin if she’d just admitted she flubbed the Revere story and shrugged it off. This is what serious people do when confronted with their mistakes, especially mistakes so trivial. If they can’t acknowledge such trivial errors, what are they going to do when faced with massive multi-trillion dollar mistakes like Obamacare?

    I disagreed with some of what Obama said on the “apology tour” but because I thought he was wrong, not because I thought it was unmanly to admit to failed policy. Had he apologized for dropping the atomic bomb, as was once rumored, I would have been furious, not because of the apology but because I think dropping the bomb was absolutely the right thing to do.

    Apologies don’t hurt us. It’s bad policy that hurts us. And it’s bad policy compounded by a stubborn refusal to admit it that is ruining us. I’ll take all the apology tours Obama’s teleprompter can cope with if it means we start undoing some of the dumb idiotic policies we’ve been pursuing for decades.

    Burning Candidates

    Here is the burning question: Will she or won’t she?

    As if the latest batch of GOP candidates that have already declared has not caused a nation wide pandemic of narcolepsy, we have one more as yet to declare wannabe giving us TMI about her digestive problems:

    You can see the whole interview here:

    First question, is she sure that “fire” is not another Trig kicking around? Todd, you horn dog, put a rain coat on that sucker, will ya? you guys Catholic or something? Enough already.

    As much as I like Sarah and think she really has the credentials with what she did in Alaska to be a good leader (unlike that “present” voting community organizer we have now), if I had her ear I would tell her ,”Don’t…Do…It”. Frankly, the group we already have would make for a good sitcom, she would do nothing to increase the size of that tent I referred to in an older thread. Sarah is making a ton of bank, doing these silly titillating tease interviews at Fox, she should milk those as long a she can,  then, once the decision is made to “not put my family through the sausage maker” to extend her services and her expertise as a power broker within the party. Given her popularity with the party faithful, she could stay relevant (and on the pay roll) for several more years, do that.

    I got a kick out of Greta’s question about why anybody would want to be president, silly rabbit, just ask Michelle. Jetting all over the world, staying at the swankiest of hotels and taking your posse with you, all on the tax payer’s dime? nice gig if you can get it, Secret Service protection for life, a nice fat pension, speaking engagements as far as the eye can see. And if you are Jimmy Carter, you get a nice stream of invitations from all the murdering dictators of the world to stay at their place gratis. Just do a little lobbying work for Hamas, maybe throw out some outlandish statements like the South Koreans are human rights violators because they are not feeding their buddies in North Korea, stuff like that.

    Maybe Arnold can throw his hat into the ring, no doubt running on that stellar record he obtained as the California governor, the one that went in with the best of intentions, but left a beaten broken man that doubled the debt he promised to fix.

    As much as I would like to see Obama as a one term er,  my optimism in the face of an upcoming presidential election has never been lower. All the most promising are all still up and comers, working on their resumes for a future run, which leaves me out in the cold and about as satisfied as taking my sister to the prom (no, never did that). I have heard rumblings that Rick Perry, current Texas governor, is considering, also, that some are still working on Chris Christie. I could get behind both those guys (although if it was Christie, you would never see me).

    So, any Palin supporters out there?

    The Double Double Standard

    Apparently, the feminists are up in arms because Congressman Aaron Shock posed with his shirt open on the cover of Men’s Health:

    Can you believe that a junior Congresswoman, someone hoping to be taken seriously, would pose nearly topless on the cover of a fitness magazine — in business attire, with her blouse open exposing her entire stomach and most of her breasts (no nipples, but close)?

    Remember when Sarah Palin was on the cover of Runner’s World wearing — wait for it — shorts and everyone was like, “provocative!”? And remember when those photos of Krystal Ball surfaced and everyone was like “sexy Santa dildo photos, provocative!”?

    Yeah. Aaron Schock is single and a conservative Baptist, and he has some sick abs. Now try to picture Erin Schock, newly elected to Congress, single and a conservative Baptist with some sick abs, on the cover of Women’s Health. Just sayin’.

    Only three paragraphs … but OH the amount of bullshit there.

    First of all, people are objecting to Schock’s posing. See? Google is your friend. The primary effect of his photo spread has been to fuel rumors that he’s gay. No one is failing to call them provocative since they kind of are.

    Second, every time some female Congresswoman is complimented on her looks, the feminists go nuts about the “double standard” of women being judged for their looks and how men aren’t subjected to this. So now they’re objecting to the opposite? It’s a perfect trap for them — they can get mad no matter what.

    Third, the person who most objected to Palin’s pictures being used was … Palin. But not when they were taken — it was a planned photo shoot. It was when they appeared on the cover of Time. No one else objected or called her a slut. The photos had no effect whatsoever on how seriously people took her as a political candidate. Supporters still thought she was plenty awesome; detractors still thought she was an idiot. And I’m not sure why Feministe is worried about Palin anyway since they think she’s a pro-life feminist traitor who gets by on her looks anyway.

    Fourth, no one … well, no one of significance … had any problems with Krystal Ball’s sexy Santa pictures. What we found amusing was her feigned outrage over the pictures beings released. No one else cared about what she did when she was a college student. Here’s what I said at the time:

    What was interesting it that she and others responded with outrage and then … nothing happened. No one cared. Well, some people cared because she’s kind of hot. But it had absolutely no effect on her minimal electoral chances.

    But I do wonder if we may be—at long last—moving to a point where no one gives a shit about what someone did in their wild single years. We’ve gotten to the point where every stupid/fun thing we do is immortalized in all its digital glory. That’s forcing us to come to the inevitable conclusion: nobody’s perfect. We muddle along as best we can and try to have some fun along the way. And if it means an embarrassing picture or two turns up down the road … well, that’s life in the Internet Age.

    Ball lost because she was in a district she couldn’t win. The pictures, despite her outrage, had nothing to do with anything. She’s still regarded as having a bright political future.

    Finally, Feministe is ignoring one of the most important events of the last year when it comes to “provocative” photos and double standards. When some anonymous asshole tried to slur Christine O’Donnell with a fish tale and some pictures, the entire fucking blogosphere erupted in protest. Conservatives, liberals, men, women — everyone thought it was a sleazy piece of shit hit piece and defended a woman that most of them didn’t like.

    But you can never win with these neofeminists. They are perpetually stuck in outrage mode.

    Aaron Schock can pose all he wants. He’ll be taken just as seriously as Sarah Palin and Krystal Ball were.

    Update: Jesus Christ, my brain is getting slow. What about fucking Scott Brown? When he ran for office, the liberals dragged out his Cosmo spread to try to derail his campaign. This became a major issue in denouncing him as a bad candidate. It had much more play than any pics of Palin or Ball, including Keith Olbermann’s disgusting rant.

    Christ, do these people remember anything?