What’s Not To Like: Gillibrand
by JudeNot to focus too much on aesthetics in politics (and as someone who’s written about the illusion that beauty is goodness, I’m neither applauding this nor making judgment on her qualifications, which I haven’t even read up on), but if you’ll forgive the pun, even Gov. Paterson has an eye for what works. Lovely and apparently NRA endorsed….ladies and gentlemen, meet: The Palin Hunter.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
50 Comments
Gee, Andrew: Who would want to sink to Palin’s level? That’s as low as it goes…
The “Palin atmosphere?” What’s that? A failed VP candidate rapidly losing popularity in her own state? A national laughingstock? A fringe politician with absolutely no chance of ever attaining national office? A whiner who trots out her family at every possible photo-op and then gets mad when the media mentions them? A diva? A dope? Yesterday’s news?
Am I missing something? Gov. Paterson is blind, so if he considered her physical beauty, it must have been on Chuck’s counsel. I did hear her acceptance speech, and you know, I didn’t, you know, hear her say, ‘you know,’ once, you know? I hope those little feature writers for those insipid women’s magazines don’t try to trip her up.
Image is everything in politics. Why/how was Kennedy even considered? We just elected an image as President. Have a gander at Obama saying he was NOT against the iraq war on a local chicago station:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/1703/OBAMA-LIES
She sounds pretty good (considering what we could have gotten) but Charles Schumer backed her – should that be a red flag? Still we could have had fun with Carolyn “You Know” Schlossberg
I would agree with Andrew – she isn’t up to Palin’s level but then (the more sensitive side of me coming out) how many men have to endure “he’s better looking than the other candidate” –
But then it is said Nixon lost the election with 2 things on camera – showing his leg from the socks and the “5 o’clock shadow”.
So I guess the women are just as judgmental about looks just quieter about it
Is Angie, Angie Bowie? You know, the one Mick Jagger wrote the song about, who liked him until she came home and found David in bed with Mick? That’s what Maggie Mae told me when Angie was staying with her, anyway. Liberals who try to deride Sarah Palin – talk about blind, to their own nuttiness.
Jude –
When you said this:
“I’m neither applauding this nor making judgment on her qualifications, which I haven’t even read up on…”
Was this the response you were hoping to get?
“Dan – January 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
And some are comparing this chubster to a babe like Sarah Palin!”
Way to objectify. Both of you.
I think I’ll have to skip any other future article you might post here on Big Hollywood.
Gery it could have been alot worse like that snake Cuomo getting the nod, Maybe the end of the Kennedy’s though.
LOLA:
You’re the best! I’m so glad to have you on the right side.
ANGIE:
Are you a member of the NRA?
Slow down here. Gillibrand has a 100% rating from NARAL, so she’s more than likely pro abortion folks.
So as I’m reading in today’s New York Post how Gov. Paterson’s selection of this “conservative” Democrat, Congresswoman Gillibrand, has caused “unhappiness” with many of the Dem’s party officials and the state’s congressional delegation — well, gosh darn it, I simply couldn’t be more pleased! (Unless, of course, a conservative Republican had been selected.)
Gary sorry for spelling your name wrong
Lola: “she runs marathons?” Who gives a f***?
American Me: “a woman in every sense of the word.” Except the sense that believes in women’s reproductive rights, of course, right?
NRA is a farce. It has been co-opted by Handgun Control Inc. They are worse than lambs, they provide cover for any gun control legislation by giving it their endorsement like they have recently. Join a non-corrupted organization – Gun Owners of America.
She’s fat? I guess that makes me a chubby chaser. I do have a weakness for redheads.
[...] Read more from the original source: What’s Not To Like: Gillibrand [...]
Image is everything in politics. Why/how was Kennedy even considered?
Simple answer she is a Kennedy
My Awesome Mix Tape #6
I think I’ll have to skip any other future article you might post here on Big Hollywood.
Careful, Awesome, or the overseer will admonish you as he/she/it did to Taxa:
harley – January 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Hey, that’s right, Taxacalirose, don’t ever read anything by anyone with whom you have had disagreements in the past.
The overseer has much bravado.
People, people. I just threw this post up to say, ‘hey look, more trouble for the GOP!’ I wasn’t comparing her to Palin favorably or unfavorably, but just pointing out the obvious, that she looks like political gold. An accomplished, attractive woman of only 42 elevated to the Senate? We’ll be hearing more from her.
TEXECALIROSE: yes, you missed my stupid pun, but I think I agree with your hoping “…those little feature writers for those insipid women’s magazines don’t try to trip her up.” What can I say, I think personal attacks on public women and their personal lives/families are cruel and too effective. Is that “objectifying”.
Oh well.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
Texacalirose:
What–if anything–do you know about Chuck Schumer? Are you aware of the 1,200 jobs he saved in a single town in upstate NY (traditionally not a popular spot for “downstate” Dems?) Do you know anything about that?
Or do you just play the FOX News/talk-radio soundtrack back like a parrot?
Please: illuminate us on your Schumer expertise.
Ms. Bowie, guess which NY senator said this:
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
… when will those clouds all disappear?
Everytime I hear Palin smeared I recall the 1980 primaries when, as a cub reporter, I covered Ronald Reagan. Every democrat I talked to — even at the highest level — would spit out a contemptuous dismissal of RR or hold his sides laughing whenever he was mentioned. They thought the Republicans were committing suicide by even considering him.
Contempt from democrats is absolutely the base requirement for a successful Republican candidate. Seek it, flaunt it, love it.
Texasmellirose:
The Fairness Doctrine is a faux issue; you are surely a right-wing radio sheep if you recite that crap. And what does the Fairness Doctrine (of which you surely also know nothing, other than what your right-wing echo chamber freaks tell you) have to do with my question to you:
What do you know about Chuck Schumer and his job creation upstate? Huh?
And “Angie” is a great song, though not written about David’s wife. It was written by Keith Richards, not Mick Jagger, and Keith didn’t hang with the Bowies.
Keep those righty talking points coming!
What is a faux issue? Is that like an ersatz position? Or pseudo-policy? Or a trompe-l’œil platform?
Instead of discussing what Schumer did in Upstate New York or what Palin did in Alaska, I’d rather talk about substantive issues, well thought out topics for discussion (aka lefty talking points) as raised by the left-wing echo chamber Kos freak sheep here:
The “Palin atmosphere?” What’s that? A failed VP candidate rapidly losing popularity in her own state? A national laughingstock? A fringe politician with absolutely no chance of ever attaining national office? A whiner who trots out her family at every possible photo-op and then gets mad when the media mentions them? A diva? A dope? Yesterday’s news?
The troll MBN’s are thick tonight …
SKIP PRESS:
You really struck a nerve. I guess he/she/it told you.
The Fairness Doctrine is only a “faux issue” in the nominal sense that the Left will now find ways not to use that term. Conservatives have ruined it for them. So now we have Chuck Schumer equating conservative speech to pornography — an inventively squalid new low, but typically leftist in its audacity, and a clear shot across the bow. It may have been a single shot, but it said everything about the disrespect for speech on the left and the ruthlessness we will see in their pursuit of dominion over the national discourse. I’ve never met a leftist in my life who felt my free-speech right was worth defending as a principle morally, inextricably bound to his own right. Their minds can’t reach that far. Or rather, this would require a reach beyond the edges of their narcissism through the penumbra of paradox (that is, a defense of one’s opponent’s right to speak actually invigorates one’s own right). They just want anybody who disagrees with them to shut up; whatever accomplishes that is okay. But Obama is smarter than Schumer, and we will see, if we pay attention, myriad little ways to malign, marginalize and of course, if possible, stomp on, dissent. I think chiefly we’ll be hearing a lot of talk about “hate speech.” I mean, these guys aren’t THAT smart: they’ll follow the lead of their Euro-progressive friends.
Raven, you really don’t know your policies, do you?
The “Fairness Doctrine ‘ isn’t a “term” that “conservatives have ruined” for anybody–it was an FCC policy.
You do know the difference between a “term” and a “policy”, don’t you, Raven?
And it’s your side, Raven–not ours–that has historically tried to “stomp on” dissent.
You do keep abreast of political history, don’t you, Raven? You have heard of Nixon and his “enemies list”, haven’t you, Raven?
Raven? Raven?
Raven:
Thanks for taking the heat off me for a while. I was getting scared. Ms. Bowie skipped right over my comments and got her Nixon-Derangement-Syndrome on. I dodged that one. I wonder if anyone is going to explain to him/her/it the relationship between the terms “issue,” “term,” and “policy.”
And speaking of “stomping on dissent,” guess who said this:
“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting [with US senators]. “I will trump you on that.”
Clue: It wasn’t Schumer and it wasn’t his former colleague who had her husband’s enemies’ FBI files on her desk, either.
We are talking about the idea of the Fairness Doctrine , or its censorious equivalent, embodied by the term, based on the former policy, properly vanquished in 1984 by Ronald Reagan (but which lives on in the fevered dreams of the Left). Follow the bouncing ball of context, Angie. So, yes, it is a term to describe a mode of suppression, a brand name so to speak, and yes, it has been ruined for use by the Left, thanks to conservative flogging over the past year. We’ve done something right, anyway. We can tell this by your sneering dismissal of it as a “faux issue” – nothing could offer better proof of your anger that we vitiated your lovely wording. Too bad — “Fairness Doctrine” had such an Orwellian ripeness, no? (And why are you calling it an “issue”, Angie — don’t you know it’s a policy!) No matter. The Left will come up with a new “term” — for the same idea, and ultimately, policy. That is what the Left does. No new ideas, just new names. “Hope” for dependence, “change” for the reanimated corpses of failed ideas.
Yes, no doubt Nixon’s list tips the scales aainst the dissent-crushing wheels of the Leftist totalitarian states throughout the 20th century. Good work.
Raven, it was 1987, not 1984. Got it?
Oh, and it ain’t comin’ back; the Dems aren’t pushing it, contrary to your Fearful Leader Rash Limbo’s fever dreams.
And comparing the American Left to totalitarianism shows both your historical ignorance and paranoia.
And Texismellyrose? When Obama reminded everybody that he won, it’s because HE DID.
Deal with it.
Quiz time for Vangie again!
Guess which 2008 presidential candidate said this:
[The candidate] said Thursday he’ll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well.
Associated Press
Thursday, June 19, 2008 (NOT 1984 or 1987, by golly).
Clue: It wasn’t the Republican candidate.
Hint: It was the same guy whose acolytes now extol his integrity, admonishing anyone who doubts his oaths and exposes his dissembling to believe the unbelievable.
In the words of his guru-ness, Gary Graham: FTS!
Andrew Price:
Thx. It’s been a bit of a snark fest this evening. The trolls and even those who purport to engage in civilized discussions from the other point of view (you know the ones, the oily, the unctuous) are filled with the audacity of hoping that we are all as inept as John McCain. The fight is on.
Angie: Except the sense that believes in women’s reproductive rights, of course, right?
Palin opposes pregnancy?
Quiz time again!
Who said this?
And
‘feminuts’‘texismellirose.’ Heh. That’s quality humor. IsLolaAngie drinking and typing again?And who said this?
[Angie], I find it interesting that the posters on this site with the biggest swinging dicks are all women. Angry, smirky, condescending women.
Not sure why. Maybe it’s just a coincidence. Me? I blame
Ann Coulter.Hillary Clinton.As for throwin it out there, this pasty is NO conservative! Not doing research on these bureaucratic politicians has and is going to do this country an extreme left socialist code pink attitude and you all know what those hags are about! Nutzzzzzzzzz! I don’t live to far from Bezerkley, see all sorts of squirrels in cages. Do your research then come back to us when you have more! Have a great weekend guys and gals!
El Gordo – January 25th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Texacalirose,
you´re the bee´s knees.
Muchisimas gracias, mijo. Oro en paz; fierro en guerra.
You must be logged in to post a comment.