Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site