And, it is a fact that better looking, taller candidates have some advantage ...

It's asymmetrical warfare.

Not me, I think Michael Moore is hot! ;) Ok, maybe not.

I don't think this is quite right, though. If MM said a similar remark to the wrong person, he, too, would be bitched at. It's just that most of the people who would complain don't care at all about Ingraham. If Trent Lott made similar remarks about Ingraham, no one would care. It's the subject, not the person saying it that matters.

It was P J O'Rourke I believe, who said you can tell which political movement is winning by which one attracts the best looking women on the campus.
I'm a bit old to perform this experiment myself, but I suspect if you attended a "Young Republicans Club" and the "Committee of Solidarity with Saddam, and World Peace Movement" meeting on two sucessive nights at your local liberal arts college, you might be able to gauge what the likely political landscape will be in a decade.

And anyway, Moore's statement just isn't true. At least not in the mythos of the Left. Invariably, the Left and liberals always style themselves as being hippier, sexier, and more attractive than the Right, who are derided as blue-blooded elitist sour old fogeys or toothless inbred rednecks.

You could say this kind of thinkign is shallow, but it often jives perfectly with the shallowness of much of the Left.

Of course, it is a matter of who says it - imagine the outrage if a Colin Powell, or better yet Clarence Thomas - accused Harry Belafonte, et al, of being field slaves on the Democrat Plantation. Yet, Belafonte can make the same accusation of Powell or Rice, and almost no objections are raised. This double standard will eventually harm (if it has not already) the American Left and Democrats as moderate swing voters begin to realize who the real hypocrites are.

Dale,

You and Michael Moore are both wrong.

Laura Ingraham is a hell of alot better looking than Michael Moore.

As for what cause attracts attractive women, I dunno. I'll bet that, underneath the tattoos, green dreadlocks, and pierced orifices, some of the anti-American chickies are rather nice-looking.

O'Rourke's theory (speculation?) can be found in "Parliament of Whores" (1991). It's a general (and brief) observation, actually credited to an unnamed "journalist friend." And it's not in fact about women "on campus." I won't quote the book as any of you who are serious undoubtedly have a copy within easy reach of wherever you're sitting right now. See pg. 192.

"I wonder what would have happened if such a really harmless joke had come from the lips of a liberal or a conservative rather than a Leftist?"

Answer: just about nothing.

Dale, you may want to consider lightening up; your hypothetical sanctimony is ruining your complexion.

As for whether those lefty American chickas are good looking, it all depends which orifaces are pierced...

Um, semi-seriously, I can tell you that on this U.S. campus that the lefty women are much better looking. Why? Because the *average* college student of either gender is center-left--the split here is around 80/20 D/R (Nader outpolled Bush here in 2000), so it's a sheer numbers game. Plus, how many good looking gals want to hang around the gaggle of stuffy, bowtie-wearing, poorly dressed and coifed dorks who constitute the majority of the conservatives? Not so many...

Everyone is center-left until they have taxes taken out of thier paycheck, and other such intrusive realities such as children. Most of those center-left hot chicks suddenly become republican when thier bowtie wearing dork husbands begin paying for thier volvo (which they soon trade in for a SUV).

"It's the subject, not the person saying it that matters."

But that's really just the corollary of "it's a matter of who says it, not what is said." In fact, they are the same thing expressed differently for the subject is merely the continuation of the actor who defines it. Thus, it's OK to attack the subject because the anointed actor is doing the attack.

i'd like to take exception with all of you right-wing assholes. first off, i'm over 40, white, male, father of 2, white collar as can be, & no, i didn't sell out. i still have comapssion. as Steve Earle comments in "Amerika v. 6.0", " am i a compassionate conervative? or is that conservatively compassionate?" i get a kick out of how you right-wingers get so concerned about the tone of discourse when its we left-wingers chucking the mud. in the Elizabethan i believe the phrase is "methinks the lady doth protest too much." so, yeah, i thnk Garrison Keillor has every right to go after Norm with a metaphoric crowbar - i heartily endorse. in fact, i feel the next ploy should be the class card. let's see it played! let's see how you boys (& i do mean boys) back-pedal from that. i've been sick of this shit since 1980 - this is war, & by the way, i have it that God's on our side.

I appears we have very little to worry about in the realm of intellectual debate. Of course to every god there is an equal and opposite god, so ... Praise Zeus! and didn't David Carr promise me a goat for sacrifice to Mars? And where *are* those virgins! Can't get the gods on my side without 'em.

PS: What the hell is the connection between Garrison Keillor and Michael Moore other than that neither one lives on this side of the Atlantic???