Posted on 11/23/2007 5:36:25 AM PST by johnny7
This is an editorial in what passes for a major U.S. paper? It is worthy of a tabloid at the check-out stand. I thought it was unseemly for their son to get on TV to announce his father’s failings to the world last week, but to each his own. However, for this to be printed as an editorial at the LAT just shows how vapid the msm is these days.
What a sorry sack of tripe.
TMI...too much information.
They are one step away from saying his Alzheimer’s is Bush’s fault.
A very specific agenda for this editorial, lost in a poor transition from Alzheimer's being used as a background for infidelity, to using race as a reason to discriminate.
If nothing else, Sandra Day O’Connor can serve as a bad example.
Her husbands abandonment of her serves as a metaphor for her abandonment of us!
You may have a point about there being an agenda in this article but I'd hardly call John O'Connor's situation "infidelity".
If an editorial gave off a smell... this one would be fecal.
On the upside, if John knocks-up his new ‘girlfriend’, thanks to Sandy she can get an abortion.
Utter drivel offering a lament at the possible demise of racial discrimination. And they wonder why people have stopped buying or caring about this and other fish wrappers?
There is much discussion over which Republican nominees would appoint Scalia/Thomas-like SCOTUS justices, but the reality is that we don’t know who would actually be appointed and more importantly, how they will rule once on the court.
bizarre
This editorial is just plain WEIRD!
Well, journalism schools are producing sloppier product I suspect. Agenda, agenda, agenda, loosely tack it with a lead in -- but stay on message, no matter how insane the acrobatics you have to do to do so.
This really IS an insane rant. Just take the time to read and analyze what it is actually saying.
First, the salacious reveling in John O’Connor’s Alzheimer driven infidelity, while pretending to be saddened by it.
Then blame it on Bush and conservatives for keeping O’Connor apart from her husband.
I have news for them. O’Connor could have resigned any time she wanted, but she stayed on because she wanted to further her leftist and internationalist agenda, which she developed after Reagan named her to the court under the impression that she was a Texas conservative.
Especially rebarbative is this bit: “Her protracted departure from the court denied her the time she had hoped to give her husband, and it had a profound and lasting effect on the court she left. By replacing her with Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush radically tilted the bench to the right, substituting Alito’s strident conservatism for O’Connor’s studied moderation.”
I have news for them. The delays in appointing Alito were ENTIRELY due to Democrat foot dragging and delays. Then they confirmed him because they didn’t dare delay any longer, because they knew that the majority of voters do not support their extreme position on abortion.
The whole article is an attempt to transfer sadness about Alzheimers to hatred against Bush.
Well put. In attempting to get us to “feel” angry at Justice Alito (and by extension, Bush), this L.A. coconut does logical gymnastics that would put Olga Korbut to shame.
Alito’s “strident” conservatism? Wow, I haven’t seen any evidence of that...must have missed something.
Why this was released to the press is beyond me. And IMust say that the editorial writers have obviously had no experience with Alzheimer’s in their own family.
Although I despise the people that wrote this disgusting article, I pray that their families will not have to experience Alzheimer’s.
They are still goobers, however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.