As we told you, Pat Smith just gave a powerful speech at the Republican National Convention skewering Hillary Clinton for her role in her son’s death.
Except Fox News viewers didn’t see all of it because Donald Trump called in to Bill O’Reilly to give an interview *during* her emotional moment:
Grieving mothers have no place on the convention stages for Dems or Republicans
It’s a testament to their faith in the lack of intelligence of the American voter .
Mark,
Democrats have perfected that technique. Heck, Cindy Sheehan was allowed to “grieve” against George W practically everyday in the bias liberal press!
Why is it only called out when Hillary is responsible for the grieving mother through her treasonous actions?
Liberals made this kind of political tactic fair game. Liberals will now have to live with it. I can’t wait to hear from grieving mothers from the war in Orlando….the moms of those lost on the ISIS battlefield…the enemy this Democratic President is losing the war to.
Trump preempting goes to show that he is worse than the narcissistic candidate that Republican’s accused Obama of being.
As I said , both sides do it . Neither should
Mark,
It’s a way of political life now.
It’s the same thing as making cheating on your wife acceptable. Liberalism makes anything acdwptable in mad quest for power.
kev:
“It’s a way of political life now”.
So you fall back on the old “the other guys do it too” playbook, eh? I though that you always had the moral and ethical high ground, at least that is what you are always preaching. But it looks like you are no better than the hated liberals. How is that moral relativity working for you now?
jason:
Well, it takes a pathetic person to know one, right?
How is that anger management class working for you? Or did you drop out of that, too?
Stay classy.
Jason,
Thug mothers? Can you provide the names of the thugs and the crimes they have been convicted of? Or does being black, unarmed and shot in the head now qualify as thug life? Pathetic. What a disgrace.
I’m glad you used him as an example. It shows you are yet another jack ass buying into the madness and who’s opinion means nothing. Pathetic. What a disgrace.
But on a lighter note, all this talk about thugs reminds me of Hedley Lamarr’s famous words, “I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.”
Baldy,
So listening and sympathizing with grieving mothers is immoral now?
I consider it compassion.
kev:
Again, reading comprehension fails you. That isn’t what I said.
Baldy,
You were complaining that I embrace the liberal tactic of using grieving mothers for political gain.
My comprehension is just fine.
“It’s a way of political life now”.
By your own admission you said it’s OK to do for both liberal and conservatives. You can’t even remember what you said let alone comprehend what others say. Sad.
Baldy,
I said it’s OK because liberals have been doing it for so long, it would simply be foolish for conservatives NOT to do it!
I was incredulous about the fact that Mark calls this out, but Cindy Sheehan was hailed as a grieving mother hero by liberals almost everyday in the press!
It’s simply to late to undo the grieving mother tactic because of liberalism. I just can’t stand all this feigned outrage by liberals because the tactic is now effectively directed at Hillary who is responsible for killing this poor woman’s son.
Hillary is as responsible for killing “this woman’s son”, as Bush is responsible for the 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths during his tenure. Not to count the 112,000-123,000 civilian deaths, and 4,491 service member deaths in his Iraq war.
Let’s not forget what happened during the Reagan administration:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/ronald-reagans-benghazi
Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.
There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.
kev:
“It’s a way of political life now”.
“I said it’s OK because liberals have been doing it for so long, it would simply be foolish for conservatives NOT to do it!”.
Those are your own words, no denying that. So in effect, by your own admission you said it’s OK to do for both liberal and conservatives, correct? Why not spare all the diversionary hyperbole and just admit that you are OK with the old saw, “the other guys do it too” excuse ?