Skip to main content

View Diary: Media pounds Bachmann migraines, campaign defends manhandling reporter (256 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Some people with migraines (5+ / 0-)

    CAN'T function effectively.  The ones who HAVE to go lay down in a dark room for a day or two are NOT FUNCTIONING.

    Others have migraines that are not as debilitating.  Lucky them.

    But when the woman misses votes, it's a problem.

    •  We'll have to (4+ / 0-)

      agree to disagree.  My wife's migraines are at times quite debilitating.  And yet, somehow, she is very good at what she does.  No, she's not running for president.  But she would make a damn good one, migraines or not.

      More generally and more importantly, IMHO, progressives should be careful in pushing a medical condition/disability as disqualifying people from higher office.  But YMMV.

      -- Stu

    •  so if Obama had migraines . . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      you'd support impeachment?

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Melanie in IA

        ... but it would've been a reasonable question to ask during the primaries. Just as we asked about McCain's heart.

        Winning elections is great, but building movements is better.

        by Alvin K on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  why not? (0+ / 0-)

          Don't all the reasons you can cite why it is applicable to a candidate in a primary, apply even MORE stringently to a sitting President?

          What reason can you cite why migraines should disqualify a primary candidate, that do not also indicate why a President with migraines should be disqualified?

          Other than the fact that one comes from a party you like, and the other one doesn't.

          (opens popcorn)  This should be fun . . .

          How silly we have become.  Our partisan patter is just as nutty as the other side's.  (sigh)

          •  Obama SMOKED and it was front (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Linda in Ohio, Melanie in IA

            page news.  Any physical disability he had would have been duly reported.

            Same with Hillary Clinton.

            Luckily, we found out about Edwards' can't-keep-dick-in-pants disease early enough.

            Every candidate is "vetted" this way.  Look at poor John McSame.

            •  but the question remains (0+ / 0-)

              If migraines disqualify a primary candidate, why do they not also disqualify a sitting President?

              What reason can anyone cite for ruling out a primary candidate because of the effects of migraines, that does not apply equally well *(with MORE urgency, in fact) to a sitting President?

              Other than the fact that one belongs to a party we like, and the other one doesn't?

              Please don't pretend that this is really about health issues or about physical fitness for office.  Everyone here knows that it's not.

              •  You've asked the same question seven times here (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jennyp, Melanie in IA

                and I still don't get your point.

                Look at how far we've gotten from the real subject.  This issue made news here because the reporter who asked the question was assaulted.

                So let's begin by agreeing that regardless of whether the question was appropriate or inappropriate, it doesn't justify assault.

                I still don't get that the question is out of line relative to health questions asked for serious candidates.

                Eisenhower, who had survived a heart attack, was asked about his health while running for a second term. Famously, Eagleton was not only asked about his prior treatments for depression -- he was eventually kicked off the ticket as McGovern's running mate.

                I don't see the connection with impeachment at all. Impeachment is only for high crimes and misdemeanors.  Once in office, the issue of potential disability no longer comes up, but with an actual disability, of course the issue comes up. You can go back to every time a sitting President has had surgery or hospitalization, and the press has asked not about impeachment, but about the Constitutional line of succession.  See Haig: "I am in control".

                I don't see how the fact that more women get migraines than men makes asking women about migraines sexist.  Men are at higher risk for many cancers -- does that make asking a male candidate about cancer sexist?

                I don't get the "double standard" or "sexism" issue here at all. Please enlighten me.

      •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

        I want one person here, anyone, to raise their right hand and swear that, had their preferred Democrat in 2008 admitted to getting severe migraines during the primary season, they would have immediately switched their vote to their second choice.

        Granted, expressing "shock, shock" at partisan double standards is a bit silly here. But still, she's probably one of the 5 kookiest people to hold any sort of national office in my lifetime -- there's much more to hit her on that doesn't have the potential of garnering a sympathetic backlash.

        Families is where a nation finds hope, where wings take dream.

        by cardinal on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:30:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We'd have already known about (0+ / 0-)

        Obama's migraines.  Are you kidding me?  He got the press colonoscopy the day the rumors started about him running for president.

        Come on.

        •  no shit, sherlock (0+ / 0-)

          The question wasn't WHETHER Obama has migraines--the question was if we'd be calling for his impeachment IF HE DID.

          I suspect nobody here, including you, would.

          Apparently we are fine with double standards, as long as they impact people we don't like.

          Sad to see us sink so low. But then, our partisan crazies have always been just as frothing-at-the-mouth as their partisan crazies. Same bird, different feathers.

          •  You can't ask that question because (0+ / 0-)

            comparing a democrat's press scrutiny with a republican's press scrutiny is like apples and oranges.

            That Bachmann is getting this kind of scrutiny is a good thing, in my opinion.

            •  I can ask that question. you can't ANSWER it. (0+ / 0-)

              It's a double-standard, and you can't defend it.  And redirecting everyone to "the press likes them but not us boo hoo hoo" doesn't help you any.

              If Bachmann should be disqualified because of migraines, why shouldn't Pelosi or Reid or Obama be too?

              Your answer: (sound of crickets chirping)  LOOK OVER THERE !!!!!!

              We're supposed to be better than they are.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site