Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

"henchmen"?

c'mon.

In the face of opposition like this, what tack do you take to introduce her?

"We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility...Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court."

-- Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, on Elena Kagan nomination

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I think we can now officially retire the notion that Sarah Palin was picked on by the media in some unprecedented way because she was a conservative.

It should be evident by now that this stuff just goes with the territory of being up for a high-profile public position.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Bryan Fischer is representative of anything or anyone. Wasn't he traded with Doug Drabek for Rick Rhoden? I thought he could have been the heir to Righetti.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Assuming you meant to type isn't rather than is, I'm afraid he is. The AFA's e-mail alerts go out to 3.4 million people, most of whom one can safely deduce agree with most of the organization's agenda.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Well, that's what I meant by not being disappointed if she's not gay.

I'm really not sure how you can say that any lesbian is not qualified.

That's nuts.

But maybe the Obama folks were counting on this. Who knows?

As for the interview, it's stupid. I don't expect them to make her available for an interview. (Katie Couric might ask her what she reads.) But don't post a fake interview. That's worse than no interview.

I wonder if any local TV news programs ran it as news.

The Bush administration got blasted for their video news releases that looked like news reports. This is just as bad.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Palin was ripped unmercifully by mainstream media.

You're going to compare that to an attack quote from the AFA?

Now I know why this thread hasn't been considered politics. :

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Palin was ripped mercilessly because she deserved it. At first, she was overly praised, particularly after her overrated speech at the RNC. I believe the NYT headline was: "A star is born."

I'm particularly referring to the idea that rumors about Palin's personal life - particularly the stuff about her youngest son and about her daughter being pregnant - would not have been pursued had she been a Democrat. Just not true. I'd love to go back and see what Bryan Fischer had to say about rumor mongering during Palin's VP run.

My point is that this stuff is in bounds for investigation by the media when someone is up for a major public office (or its judiciary equivalent). The candidates don't get to frame the story. That's not the American way, and it's as distasteful to see liberals grandstand about how offended they are in this case as it was to see conservatives act the same way in Palin's case.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Really? I've never heard of them.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Just took a quick look at their website, didn't find anything too objectionable (typical conservative political stuff)- I wonder why they would be so different in e-mails than on-line. Or maybe I just didn't look hard enough.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Any difference in your argument between elective office and an appointment?

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

You've probably heard of their work. They're behind a lot of the various boycotts of companies like Disney, largely because the companies they target dare to attempt to sell their products to those living "hedonistic" lifestyles. They pursued Campbell's because it had the temerity to run an ad, showing happy lesbians and their son OH NOES!, in a gay magazine.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Very little. If someone were writing a biography of, say, Antonin Scalia, I would expect the same depth of research that I would a biography of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. And the same goes with serious news coverage.

I think there's a lot of liberal hair-splitting going on right now to try to distinguish reporting on Kagan from reporting by Palin or any other Republican. Or even Hillary Clinton.

Also, understand that I'm not supporting tabloid-style gossip-mongering. But, presented in context, solid reporting on a candidate or official's private life is completely in bounds as a tool to assist the public in understanding who this person is, what makes him/her tick.