Monday, September 15, 2008

The Democrats double standard

Why is it that when liberals want to put a woman in a position of importance, her gender is the only important consideration, but when conservatives want to do it, qualifications are all that matter?

16 comments:

kycobb said...

Martin,

Can you provide some evidence that any Hillary supporter said she should have been nominated just because she was a woman? It seems to me that throughout the campaign, they emphasized her experience.

Anonymous said...

Of course he can he can pull up some instances where people say they will/others should vote for Hillary only because she is a woman. But these are isolated cases and don't represent the majority of opinions.
But Mr Cothran is clearly a Republican/Palin advocate. He has never claimed to be impartial. So he paints everything in the best light to favor his views. And some people buy it. He at least appears sincere in his support for Palin - Carville and Matalin spend the day excoriating the opposite party and then go home together. But they, along with Limbaugh, Coulter, and Moore have long ago learned they can become quite wealthy pandering to the unsuspecting masses.


jah

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

Where did I mention Hillary?

Anonymous said...

MC: Where did I mention Hillary?

He didn't specifically. But that is the essence of misrepresentation.

Earlier MC wrote: Why is it that when liberals want to put a woman in a position of importance, her gender is the only important consideration,

Certainly some liberals wanted to put Hillary in a position of importance, so she is implicitly included in Mr Cothran's argument. But no, he did not specifically mention her by name.

This is one minor example of a major problem with so-called absolute morality. It consists of laws composed by an external agent. So such a morality might state "do not lie" and indeed Mr Cothran in these situations has not lied. But his argument would by the standards of a reasonable person (the definition of which is obviously always a point of contention) include Hillary. So Mr Cothran can obey the letter of the law but arguably not its intent, that it is wrong to mislead people.


jah

Martin Cothran said...

You're a piece of work. I say not a single, solitary word about Hillary, you misrepresent what I say, and then you accuse me of misrepresentation. You ought to go to work for one of the campaigns in their media department.

I said exactly nothing about Hillary, and I said nothing that even indicates that I meant Hillary, which is why you can't point to anything.

In fact, ironically, you're argument here is the same as the McCain campaign's argument saying that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment was clearly aimed at Palin.

I wasn't even thinking about Hillary when I wrote it. I was actually thinking of military and law enforcement where women are required to meet lower standards for admission than men--policies liberals support when it comes to jobs that involve the risk of life or death, but when it comes to politics in cases like Palin's they abandon.

Anonymous said...

Someone please, please tell me that Mr Cothran is kidding.

Even if he didn't intend to reference Hillary (whom kycobb brought up), how can he possibly re-read what he wrote, and in the context of all of his recent political posts, not realize that most people would think he was referring to Hillary?

I can believe he was referring to other situations; my writing is also often misunderstood. But how can he possibly not now realize what others might think?

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Okay, I think I've got the idea now: I write a post that nowhere mentions Hillary, but I'm somehow obliged to produce evidence that what I didn't say about Hillary is, in fact, true.

And by not mentioning Hillary I am actually misrepresenting myself because that is obviously what I meant even though I didn't in fact say it.

We'll call this the "Lipstick on a Pig" Principle.

Jah, please give me evidence that Obama is the best candidate in the election. That is clearly what your posts are getting at as attested by the fact that you didn't say anything remotely having to do with Obama.

And don't try to wriggle out of what you clearly were attempting to do in your post.

Anonymous said...

I assumed Mr Cothran was alluding to Hillary. IMHO, what Mr Cothran could do is merely point out that I had misunderstood his words and he was not referring to Hillary but to the other cases he mentioned later. [Note that in earlier threads I have more than once pointed out "I did not say that" when my words for whatever reasons were misunderstood.]

Let me ask again - after the many political posts by Mr Cothran on the upcoming election, is it unreasonable for someone to assume that Mr Cothran was referring to Hillary?



jah

kycobb said...

Martin,

you mentioned jobs that involve the risk of life or death, like firefighters or policemen, and then you put Palin in a different category, as though the position she is running for has less risk than that? Puh-leeze! If Palin is elected veep and anything happens to McCain, she will have more power to inflict death on the planet than any other human being on earth! I know there is a GOP tradition of nominating utter lightweights as veep (Agnew, Qualye), but with McCain being potentially the oldest president ever sworn in, VP shouldn't have been treated as a quota hire.

Anonymous said...

Palin? Palin?

When did Mr Cothran mention Palin in this thread?

He didn't write one single, solitary word about Palin.

He wrote exactly nothing about Palin, and he wrote nothing that even indicates that he meant Palin, which is why you can't point to anything.


"Why is it that when liberals want to put a woman in a position of importance, her gender is the only important consideration, but when conservatives want to do it, qualifications are all that matter?"


jah

Martin Cothran said...

Kycobb,

Are you referring to the job that John Nance Garner once described as not worth "a bucket of warm piss"?

Martin Cothran said...

So no one wants to address my main point, huh?

Anonymous said...

MC: So no one wants to address my main point, huh?

What is the main point? The original post had "liberals" and "conservatives" with lowercase first letters, so now it isn't even clear to me that we are speaking of Democrats and Republicans.

Perhaps Mr Cothran could be a little more detailed and specific, perhaps even giving example(s) of liberals wanting to put a woman in a position of importance based only on her gender and conservatives wanting to do it based on qualifications? [Preferably something indicating these things happen frequently.]

I'm now a little gun shy about responding to what is to me the obvious interpretation of a non-specific comment.

jah

kycobb said...

I think I have, Martin. Apparently, you think it doesn't matter who is just one step away from being commander-in-chief, while a lot of us think that person ought to have some qualifications for the position, even if it is "a bucket of warm piss" while the president is living. Have you thought about how many VPs have become president?

Martin Cothran said...

Kycobb,

If you had the choice between one presidential ticket on which the presidential candidate was unqualified and another on which the vice-presidential candidate was unqualified, which would you pick?

Anonymous said...

1) What does "qualified" mean?
2) What are their positions on the issues? If the positions are assumed to be equivalent to isolate the qualification issue, then this should be stated to preclude subsequent confusion.

jah