Tuesday, February 02, 2010

 

Sarahcuda Mangles Deadfish

It's always a pleasure to see an obnoxious prick like Rahm Emanuel get his comeuppance from a decent person, in this case Sarah Palin, who went after the little weasel with both barrels for his "f''n retards" slur reported last week. Ben Smith at Politico:
On Facebook, Sarah Palin launched today an unusual, personal attack on the chief of staff in response to a report that he'd dismissed progressives' attempts to pressure Senate centrists as "retarded."
Now, I've used that word myself on occasion, but I would never stoop so low as to insult the mentally challenged by comparing them to "progressives" - that's just uncalled for. Deadfish apologized for the remark, but don't ever think it's an act of contrition; to a weasel like this guy, it has nothing to do with decency and everything to do with political expediency.

UPDATE
Rahm Emanuel's brother Ezekial is the chief health care adviser to president Obama, and just one of the Obama administration's "bioethicists" who believe that medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those who are "irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...an obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia"- in other words, he believes in euthanizing the less fortunate among us, as the Democrats and their leftist pals on the bench made sure happened to Terri Schiavo.

Is it likely those views are shared by Rahm? Hadley Arkes, the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College and the architect of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, has a few questions for Deadfish, and an observation:
Palin ought to be asking these questions:

—Would children like her son Trig be denied care under a government-run health-care system? Would their lives be considered less “worth living”?

—Does Emanuel think that women would be justified in aborting babies who were likely to be afflicted with Down’s syndrome? Would he respect their decision to have those abortions on the grounds that they do not think children with Down’s syndrome have lives worth living?

—Would Emanuel think it permissible to end the lives of people walking around, well out of the womb, who happen to have Down’s syndrome? If not, what is the difference? Surely it cannot be that those walking around have evaded or survived the prospect of abortion, for his own president became famous for refusing to protect infants who had survived an abortion.

Emanuel’s embarrassment involves more than just a slip of the tongue — it involves a deeply planted moral understanding. The greater embarrassment is that the real moral issue seems to have gone unnoticed, both by the journalists covering the story and by the people taking offense at Emanuel’s comment.

This could just be getting started, and eventually head in a direction that will lead to more trouble for Obama, more trouble for Obamacare and a resignation for one or both of the brothers Emanuel.

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?