Nikki Haley has got to win. If she does not, politics will have truly become the proverbial “blood sport,” and no amount of sexism or racism will disqualify people from public life.
Her opponents are slithering around in the mud.
UPDATE: Stacy, the petition Ace signed regarding Ann Coulter had to do with her use of the word “faggot,” which was offensive, despite her later protest that she’d only used it as “a schoolyard taunt” rather than an allusion to homosexuality. Because the construction of her sentence criticized repercussions against the use of the word as a slur against gays. That is wrong.
I happen to know that Ann is not anti-homosexual, but she was clearly putting her own career ahead of the conservative movement in that speech.
As for the Tapdance of Spades [speaking of offensive] over whether Haley might really be an adulteress, that is very likely a result of his embarrassment at having defended Bristol Palin against what he clearly regarded as scurrilous charges that she was pregnant, early on in the Palin-McCain campaign. Ace sort of took the tack that she was a virgin whose honor was being impugned. And, well . . . the man’s been gun-shy ever since.
But Haley? Well, 1) I’ve never cared, as long as she was discreet if she did stray. I don’t care with males, either, unless they’re also sexual harassers, like Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy. Also, 2) none of Haley’s attackers have any credibility—I mean, a late-night phone conversation? Easy to fake, and if genuine, more an indication of insomnia than adultery. Furthermore, 3) Haley has stated that she’s been faithful to her husband, and that if the other side did have evidence [and of course they don’t, or we’d have seen it by now] she would resign from the campaign, or from any public office that she held.
UPDATE II: Tom Friedman just called. He said, “those Indians . . . there are just so many of them. Can’t we be more like the Chinese government?” I told him to please get back on his meds, quick.
By the way: anyone who mixes up Muslims and Sikhs does need a Bigot-to-English Dictionary.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Damn, you’re right. The Rick Moran-led blogger round-robin letter was at CPAC 2007, not 2006. These things tend to blend into a blur as time recedes, eh.
My regrets at the mischaracterization of the controversy and apologies to any “ragheads” offended by my confusing them with “faggots.” Or vice-versa, for that matter.
“Bigot to English Dictionary”? That is so rich I believe that I will steel it from you!
We are already at the point where no amount of sexism or racism will disqualify a Democrat from public life.
“….I’ve never cared, as long as she was discreet if she did stray. I don’t care with males, either….”
Why not care? If a person will deceive their spouse in such a fashion, do you really think that they wouldn’t lie their ass off to you or anyone else for personal gain? Should you believe anything they say, trust anything they promise?
Honor, character, values, trustworthiness, respect, loyalty. Surely we have learned by now – these things matter.
Just to be clear, not withstanding my handle, I’m not referring to making a moral judgment in this case, but rather to the practical matter of whether a candidate is worth your support, your time, your effort, your money, or your vote. It doesn’t make the slightest difference how closely their platform matches your own views if you can’t trust them. The moral stuff matters in a practical sense.
JAW, I modified it from, I believe, a Margaret Cho line about “redneck to English.” (Standup routine; someone called her a “chink,” and she was all like, “I’m a ‘gook.'” Say what you will; it was a good line.)
Stacy, that particular revolt (the Coulter “faggot” slurette) was led by Sean Hackbarth. I remmeber, because I was in a white rage over it at the time.
MM, I do believe that there is a distinction between public morality and private morality in this country, because the church v. state thng has been absorbed into the body politic on a cellular level.
For the record, for instance, I do not believe that Mark Sanford’s romanticism is truly comparable to that of Bill “Blowjob While Deploying Troops” Clinton.
Same reasoning from which I draw a distinction between Nixon’s lying and dirty tricks and secret tapings vs. his potty mouth and non-Quaker drinking pattern.
Morality has existed in some form in every society in human history precisely because it has practical value. In this case, I’m referring to it’s practical value in being predictive of future behavior. While Clinton’s lust-based cheating was certainly more tacky and disgusting than Sanford’s apparently love-based cheating, both were inherently dishonest, and dishonest in a self-serving way – the betrayal was no less a betrayal if it was for love or lust. Similarly, Nixon’s dishonesty, and again it was self-serving dishonesty, is predictive of future dishonesty in a way that his drinkin’ and cussin’ is not. Punishment for sin is God’s job, certainly not mine – my aim in recognizing their immorality is not to “punish” them by withdrawing my support, but rather to ask what their immoral behavior says about their character in as much as it relates to their performance in the job for which I am interviewing them, the job of representing my interests in their public office. In as much as it relates to that – character does matter. To say that you don’t care about it seems to indicate that either you don’t see it as wrong (which I doubt is the case from reading your blog) or that you don’t see it as relevant to their job. I’ve seen enough of weasely behavior on the part of politicians and its negative effects on their job performance to say that yes, evidence of weasely behavior in their personal life does matter.
=^_^=
=^_^= Kawai