Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General How the GOP gets it's freak on?

A key part of my statement was, "when he announced his candidacy", and if not reading Free Republic means I am sticking my head in the sand, then it seems a good place to keep it, Scoutgal.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. My usual schtick?:-)

Baloney. The big Italian deli kind. His inexperience was questioned with nasty comments, his faith, his affiliation with Rev. Wright-likewise. His birthplace, his ties, or lack of them to his family in Kenya also. Look to this very board to those who tried to emphasize a non-existent affiliation to Islam by capitalizing President Obama's middle name by posters opposing his candidacy.

And it seems that Rush didn't learn a thing, except that his show was highly watched-meaning good ratings and more money to made from advertisers. Because he's still making the nasty comments about President Obama and other Liberals. Isn't he the one that coined the phrase "Feminazi" to describe Hillary Clinton? And made huge ratings hay slamming President Clinton about Monica Lewinsky?

David Letterman got spanked for his comment about Willow Palin-and rightly so. But comments made about Sarah Palin for things she said weren't any worse than those said about Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Al Gore, or President Bush. Maybe the only person I can think of that had worse comments-and deservedly so-was VP Dick Cheney.

And as I re-read through this thread, Comments about Sarah Palin were not confined to her VP candidacy, but throughout her time in front of the media. So I am using that same gauge for President Obama and others. That is only fair.

You pick and choose your timelines and my comments so as to not take responsibility for what is truly being said by both sides. You conveniently edit out that which you do not wish to acknowledge. I didn't refer only to FR, and you know it. You confined your timeline to the 2008 election for President Obama, but included up to the present time for Sarah Palin-not kosher or honest to change the rules in the middle of the game. Especially when you are not the originator of the thread. It smacks of a spoiled child that isn't winning and changes the rules to make it more favorable only to him.

Actually, my very first post included "from the very first days of her selection as McCain's running mate" followed by "there is a difference between routine initial political attack and the initial personal attack Palin was subjected to...". I included the same references in following posts, so no, I am not switching timelines. I also was differentiated between personal attack and and political attack, and attacks directed at family. I seem to have adhered to what I previously wrote (that being the rules thingie, I guess).:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

You may have edited the field to the "earliest days", but the subject of the thread is all inclusive of time in front of the media-during and after the election. The originator sets the parameters, and that is what I am going by. Not your so judiciously edited convolutions that disingenuously support your POV. BTW, "from the earliest days" could just be construed to mean from the beginning-not only during the election when nothing hateful was said about President Obama as a candidate.

The nasty comments re his birth circumstances are personal attacks, as are any related to his faith. His wife and children have been referred to as "gorillas"-how much more personal can you get? And these comments were stated during the election, and have continued to this day.

Actually, the originating post and its follow-up where some sort of sexual fanatasy meant to be humiliating to Repubs, using Palin as a vehicle for getting that 'point' across. A parade of support chimed in -- as usual -- and it was off to the races. If the rule is to remain within the parameters of the orginating poster there would be precious few responses that have ever been made in this forum that would be legitimate.

I think you claim that Obama's family was a target of the press during his campaign is unsupportable, but I also have to wonder why, even if it were so, why you would think that would justify the treatment Palin and her family received. Since you haven't displayed hatred for her or targeted her family, why do you feel it necessary to defend those that have?
Yours,
Issodhos

And, out of curiousity, why would I have an obligation to "take responsibility" for what either side said or says?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Since the originating post sets the tine of the thread, and not your fantasy of what the authors intent, I shall stick to the subject that was presented in the original post.

How strange that you don't think calling one's wife and children gorillas is not a personal attack. Yet saying that Sarah Palin being criticized for having a daughter who had a baby out of wedlock is hate. I don't condone either side picking on children-it is disgusting and mean, no matter who does it.

Hateful comments directed at public figures, while nasty and distasteful, seem to be part of the political landscape and frequently used by both sides of the political aisle. So if that has become the norm, I would then have to say "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." I would rather attack issues than the person. And as I said in a previous post, Sarah Palin has indulged in that hate comment style of speaking herself. See the two links I provided in that post.

Apologies-I posted poorly;I meant to acknowledge what has truly been said on both sides-that it has occurred towards President Obama-and still does. Just like I'm sure it does towards Sarah Palin.

Good theory. We saw in pictures from India that Mr. Obama can't dance.