Saturday, December 1, 2007

YouTube debate has Parker frothing

At least Kathleen Parker can be considered consistent here, she was just as snooty toward those who YouTubed the Democratic debate some weeks ago. Well, she goes the gamut of flailing at guys who show their rifles and bibles. However, the question I have here is just how much of this did Ms. Parker miss?

Giuliani before the NRA and his wife calls him in the middle of a speech. Ms. Parker was going off on a tangent about the little lady calling her husband in the middle of an important speech. Seems to me that Giuliani had a very politically good reason for wanting it that way. Oh, the NRA has been a force in determining who should enter Congress, the Judiciary at any level of government, even to backing who they want for President. Why should it come as a surprise if a guy could YouTube a question about guns with a gun in hand?

The religious wacko: "Bill Moyers Journal" on PBS informs us of CUFI--Christians United for Israel. Indeed, Moyers tells us that even though CUFI is only two years old as a demonstratively political organization who's willingness to be "united" for Israel is to watch Armageddon make its appearance and even demanding that GW hasten it along. Meanwhile, they'll be raptured as the rest of us roast in the resulting nuclear storm. They have made a presence as a lobbying or interest group in Congress. It wouldn't be surprising that the "wacko" that Ms. Parker sniffs at and dismisses (as somehow not representative of the rest of society) could easily have been a CUFI member.

Then she takes a whack at a general who signed onto Senator Clinton's presidential campaign. Okay. Shouldn't the gay general have as much right to ask a legitimate question regardless of political party about the status of gays in the military? Nor should it matter who's presidential campaign he signed onto. Should GW's successor be a Republican president, will gays in the military get the same treatment as they had under GW? Seems Parker was prepared to froth over the fact that the general had signed onto the Clinton campaign in the first place, more than respecting the fact that this is truly a serious question. Parker's snootiness that the unwashed get to ask questions of the Presidential candidates they are expected to vote for during the primaries and the nominees (GOP and Dem) by November of 08 goes beyond the pale. Not having the capacity to YouTube myself, or I would have submitted a few questions to the candidates of both parties.

Parker needs to come down from her Ivory tower.

News: Guy claims to have a bomb attached on his chest and invades a Senator Clinton campaign HQ in New Hampshire. KREM 2 News, CNN, etc. went wall to wall with this. CNN was still going on about it even after the guy finally surrendered and was taken into custody by police. Which brings me to this next opinion that was trotted out by Dewayne Wickham who writes for Gannett News Services. The gist of his column republished on 1 December 2007 is that Senator Barack Obama isn't getting the support of African Americans that he needs because they fear he'd only get assassinated... This, the day after, Senator Clinton faced a mad hostage taker (however indirectly) at her NH Campaign HQ. Note to Wickham, white male presidential candidates such as Robert Kennedy not only faced assassination, but got assassinated. White male presidents were also assassinated such as Lincoln, or came near to dying from the act of the deranged such as Reagan. Why would race or gender change the equation of a nutcase going after a high profile politician. What Wickham didn't choose to discuss that apparently Jesse Jackson never created a fear in the African-American community, when he ran as president that he would face assassination. So why is Obama given the faint at heart treatment? He isn't under any more threat factually, that Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, etc., etc., and etc.

No comments: