"... and smear it all over themselves, because, hey, they're serious people -- and also sexually desirable. Or something."
A comment on WaPo's "Why we wrote about the Koch Industries and its leases in Canada’s oil sands," which responds to Power Line's "Washington Post Falls for Left-Wing Fraud, Embarrasses Itself," which referred to a WaPo article by Steve Mufson and Juliet Eilperin titled (apparently falsely) "The biggest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers."
Power Line responds to the material at the first link with "The Washington Post Responds to Me and I Respond to the Post," and I got there via Instapundit, who said: "I’d really like to see a list of who’s married to/sleeping with whom in the Washington press corp, rather than having this drip out scandal by scandal."
Here's the lipsticky pic that Power Line includes at the "Responds to Me/I Respond" post that seems to have fired up the commenter I quoted:
When does it detract from your argument to go after a woman for her looks? When the aspects of her looks that strike you as ridiculous are things that she's done to herself? When your objection to her seems to have something to do with how she's deployed her looks to make herself part of a Washington power couple? When she's been really despicably deceptive and you want to lock onto an image to feel hate toward?
Why go after the female half of a co-written article? Because the male half has maintained the kind of natural look for himself that is really not much of a choice for a man. Only a woman's look — because there's such a range of choice — seems revelatory of the inner space of her mind. But be careful of getting drawn in to your fantasies of what's going on in that female mental vortex. You could get hurt. Badly. Quite aside from the way it distracts us from the meat of your argument.
Whither the meat?