The question was perfectly sensible to anybody who's been paying attention. I didn't have to think about it, and as I pointed out, almost nobody (except Palin) gave it a second thought, until this ridiculous ex-post-facto argument was handed down by the spinmeisters.
Take a step back, man: You're arguing that your ignorance (or rather, your new-found ignorance) excuses Sarah Palin's ignorance. I realize that that sort of argument works well with "the base", which confuses ignorance with "authenticity", but it doesn't cut it with me. Ignorant is ignorant. We're talking about a potential Backup President here, and ignorance is more than just sad in that position, it will likely have deadly consequences for the country.
Current Events » in reply to re: Totally clueless II
Give it up
The whole thread (46 posts)
- Bush doctrine
- Totally clueless
- re: Totally clueless
- You shouldn't be so harsh, Robert.
- re: Bush doctrine
- I thought the Bush Doctrine was to make the oil company executives rich...
- Typical Krauthammering nitpick CYA maneuver.
- Odd that I, and most other observers, knew exactly what he was referring to....
- If you read Krauthammer regularly, you probably do believe Bush is a liberal. (n/t)
- "I've said Bush's foreign policy is liberal rather than conservative." So much for you. (n/t)
- Totally clueless
