Look, Readers, at the combination of Fox's staff writing and of Cindy McCain's quotes. It is really quite artistic:
"In spite of what you see ... in the newspapers, and on shows like 'The View' — I don't know if any of you saw 'The View' yesterday, they picked our bones clean — in spite of what you see, that's not what the American people are saying and what they are believing," Cindy said at Saturday's 119th annual Oakland County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, ABC News reports.
"In spite of what you see ... in the newspapers, and on shows like 'The View' — I don't know if any of you saw 'The View' yesterday, they picked our bones clean — in spite of what you see, that's not what the American people are saying and what they are believing," Cindy said at Saturday's 119th annual Oakland County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, ABC News reports.
During the McCains' appearance, they were asked about everything from Gov. Sarah Palin to their houses to the separation of church and state.
Ahhhhh. Such a wonderfully figurative turn of phrase, "picked our bones clean," and it made it into the headline of the piece. And then Fox "substantiates" Cindy's claim by pointing out that she and her husband were (GASP) asked all kinds of questions on the set.
Gee. Isn't that something candidates for office should be inviting (Palin)? Even if you wanted to cede the claim that too much is being made of how many houses they own--the McCains seem to be doing pretty well coming out and saying tha too much is being made of it. Of course, some might make a connection between the McCains' class status and John's claim that the economy is sound. But again, they are free to rebut this. It is called a free press and an accountable government.
Now, Readers here know that Harrogate is no fan of The View. More often than not he finds it banal and even insulting to thinking people everywhere. And Whoopi Goldberg (Harrogate's least favorite of them) certainly sounded dumb when she asked McCain whether his view of the judiciary's relationship to the Constitution meant that she might have to go into slavery. Technically at least, adherence to the Founders' intent also means you are in favor of the electorate's right to amend the Constitution. There are so many things noxious and wrong with McCain's attitude towards the judiciary--why not focus on them, Whoopi, instead of going for a feelgood line empty of substance?
But overall, Harrogate was pleased to see how well the View ladies did. Indeed, Harrogate would like to see the Hard News Media learn a bit from what those ladies did. They appropriately grilled McCain on a number of fronts, including Roe.
And, come on. Joy Behar may as well have been saying the sky is blue when she said that McCain's Ads have been lying. This doesn't stop Fox from making it seem like Behar's words were scandalous:
At one point, co-host Joy Behar told McCain that two of his campaign ads are "untrue ... they're lies"
Heh.
4 comments:
This is what I think: Cindy McCain The View
Actually, I think that Whoopie's question is constitutionally legitimate. There are many "originalists" out there and McCain appears to desire this interpretation. Why not mention this? Why not argue that under the original constitution only white man "freeholders" could vote? Why not argue that abortion was not regulated and not illegal? Why not argue that under an "original interpretation" Congress, not the president, possesses the power to declare war.
If someone wants to argue as an originalist, let them. But force them to that position until they crack.
Solon:
Ouch! Harrogate didn't think it was possible to have a lower view of the "originalists" than Harrogate has, but your contempt for them seems to exceed even Harrogate's.
Harrogate admits to giving the Scalias the benefit of the doubt when they say that the Amendment procedure was put in place as a proper corrective to institutionalized injustices, etc.
But maybe you and Whoopi are right. Now that these same clowns are baying at the moon for Constitutional Amendments designed to ABROGATE rights, then perhaps they really don't deserve any more credit than Whoopi gave them.
Melancholically standing corrected,
Harrogate
I have contempt for Originalism as a interpretive philosophy. I encourage historical arguments as they are important.
However, as a philosophy it is undemocratic since we are guided by voices in the past with little ability to engage in self-government. Second, it is one of many available value choices. There are even competing value choices with originalism.
For example, in the war on terror cases, the originalists are correct to not the original judiciary would not act. Yet, to decide on this position neglects a system of checks and balances and neglects the original restriction against the accumulation of power under the presidency. Now, which value is more important. Originalism itself cannot answer these questions.
Post a Comment