« Home | Hindrocket Strikes Again! » | The Best Case Against Vouchers » | Political Blogging » | Trouble in Wingnut Paradise » | Contact Information » | Sorry, folks » | Funny or no? You decide. » | Unpatriotic, Filthy Rich Hiding Money » | Frist/DeLay '08! » | Military Recruiting Falls Short » 

Monday, May 23, 2005 

Ad Hominem

On Minnesota Dems Exposed, The Exposer goes all-out with an ad hominem attack on Colleen Rowley, the FBI whistleblower who shed light on the FBI's investigation in the days before 9/11. Rowley is apparently considering running for Congress against Rep. John Kline in our great state's 2nd district.

MDE's post is titled "The Ugly Duckling May Run for Congress" and, in highlighting certain sections of an AP article, seems to be denigrating Rowley and her fitness for office on a perceived lack of attractiveness or care for her appearance.

Am I alone in thinking that MDE is a crass and shallow political observer if his first post on Rowley's possible candidacy is attacking her by merely calling her ugly? Does MDE really believe that her ability to serve as a Congresswoman is at all compromised by not being, in his estimation, attractive? Rowley has, by all accounts, done the United States a great service in her work for the FBI and sounds like a great candidate for Congress. I, for one, would rather my Congressperson be unattractive but able rather than an attractive buffoon. MDE should be ashamed of him/herself.

I am not calling her ugly. My title is in reference to "The Ugly Duckling" by Hans Christian Anderson.

I completely agree with you that there should not be a requirement of beauty to run for Congress.

Running for Congress should be base on qualifications and beliefs, not based on your fashion sense.

I am certainly not a pageant winner, but I don't have plans to run for congress.

The only person who should care about Rowley's apperance should be Rowley.

If that was not clear in my post, I will amend it.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Contact NSP