Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

“War on women” irony lost on Democrats at their convention

A tribute to the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who killed a woman with his car and let her die in a slow, torturous watery tomb as his pickled #ss wandered up and down the road, pondering his political future.  Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.  Then again, so was Kennedrunk.  Anywho, Teddy K also sexually accosted a waitress with Chris Dodd (Google “waitress sandwich Dodd Kennedy” if you don’t know).

Bill Clinton, a womanizing lout who raped Juanita Broaddrick.

Yet it’s Mitt Romney and the Republicans who have declared a “war on women”?  Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

Irony: it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

September 5, 2012 Posted by | Bill Clinton, feminism, irony, Kennedrunk, Romney, shameful | 4 Comments

Obama’s war on women

So this is the talking point the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) wanna go with?  Republicans’ “war on women”?  Well, alrighty then.  Game on, beyotch:

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to  immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act. …


April 12, 2012 Posted by | feminism, hypocrisy, Obama | 2 Comments

Jerry Brown: My female opponent is a “whore”. Feminist organization: Jerry’s our guy!

As Ed asks, what exactly does it take for a Democrat to lost the endorsement of NOW?  I mean, Bill Clinton was a serial womanizer, sexual harrasser, and rapist, and NOW couldn’t get enough of the guy.  And less than 24 hours after an audio clip of Dem CA governor candidate Jerry Brown calls his female opponent, Meg Whitman, a whore, NOW comes to his rescue.

If you were naive enough to think that feminism actually had the best interests of women at heart instead of being a leftist front group, then “you’re welcome” for me setting you straight.

October 9, 2010 Posted by | California, feminism, hypocrisy | 3 Comments

N.O.W. gets panties in a bunch over Obama’s all-guy outings

Details here.

Exit question: Is the irony lost on this chick that while she tsk-tsks B.O. for fraternizing with only one gender while golfing, her organization is comprised of a group of people…aimed at only one gender?  I guess single-gender shindigs are A-OK, so long as there are no Y chromosomes present.

October 27, 2009 Posted by | feminism, hypocrisy, Obama | Leave a comment

Why Palin irks feminists

WSJhas a great column on why Gov. Palin irks feminists.  It’s a great column, and you should definitely read it.  In short, though: She’s a successful conservative woman who is happily married and doesn’t demand a big government approach to support women.  This column should put to rest any pretense that feminists actually care about all women.

Of course, I have a list of reasons that liberal feminists detest Gov. Palin:

  • she’s not a lesbian;
  • she shaves her legs and armpits;
  • she bathes;
  • she spells the word “women” correctly, not “womyn”;
  • she’s attractive;
  • she doesn’t reek of patchouli;
  • she believes in the God of Heaven and creation, not in the god of big government;
  • any failures in life she has had, she hasn’t attributed them to the “phallusocracy”.

Those are just a few.  Any others?

September 15, 2008 Posted by | feminism, hypocrisy, Palin | 5 Comments

Obama’s sexist streak continues

Relax, “Sweetie“, and you just might like it.  Quoth The One:

Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin’s new “change” mantra.

“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.”

“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”

Pig?  Stinky fish?  OK, so maybe he was talking about McCain and not Palin, right?  Well, the crowd didn’t take it that way, did they?

Reporters were a bit skeptical that Obama intended to do that; from the sketchy reports we have, he seemed to be talking about how John McCain can claim to represent change but isn’t really an agent of change.  But [Mass. Gov. Jane] Swift said, “it’s pretty clear the crowd thought that that was the insult he was leveling.”  And Swift made the (hopefully) undeniable observation that Palin is the only one of the four national candidates who wears lipstick.

Maybe the Hildebeast, Ferraro, and other women were onto something with this “O as sexist” meme.

September 9, 2008 Posted by | feminism, McCain, Obama, Palin, shameful | 15 Comments

“New feminism”

Jeff Goldstein witnessed an exchange between liberal radio show host Ed Schultz and former Republican Congresswoman Susan Molinari.  Here’s what Schultz had to say about Palin’s daughter getting pregnant:

SCHULTZ: The facts are this. What kind of mother is she? Is she prepared to be the vice president? Is she going to be totally focused on the issues.

MOLINARI: So every — so every person out there who has an unwanted pregnancy in their family is a result of bad mothering? Wow. That’s really bold to say that.

SCHULTZ: Don’t tell me she’s a role model. …

Jeff’s retort:

Of course, by this logic, the fact that Hillary’s hubby was getting his gear shaft polished under the desk means Hillary is not qualified to lead. But no matter.

This kind of argument — which, let’s face it, Schultz would never be making were the candidate a man (must be part of the new feminism, incidentally: working women, for all their professional accomplishments, are to be judged by the mistakes of their children — not how they react to those mistakes, which, in the masculine Obama’s case, we know would be to get rid of the “punishment”) — suggests that Sarah Palin is a bad mother, not because of a mistake made by her teenage daughter, but because she wasn’t there to stop it.

Or, to put it another way, what was this Palin woman thinking taking a job while she should have been home, in the kitchen, each morning fastening a chastity belt around her daughter’s honeypot?

I mean, it’s one thing to want to work and act like a man when you haven’t the burden of children — or when you are at least prepared to pony up for a strict Catholic nanny from South America to beat some respect into the child. But, c’mon, honey: playtime is over. Tend your garden, like a good little squaw. Then you might not have yourself a knocked up trailer trash daughter.

Jesus. Can you imaging a “liberal” radio host making this same argument were Palin and her daughter Democrats and black? Of course not. Instead, we’d be treated to a nonstop narrative of sacrifice and the difficulties of growing up black in America — of cultural pressures, the differences between black and white, etc.

Question for Schultz and like-minded brain-dead liberals: Since Al Gore’s kid got busted for driving while a stoner, does that make Al Gore a bad father and Tipper a lousy mom?  Maybe Obama’s grandparents were lousy parental figures because Barry O was a coke snorter while in their care?

It’s clear that when you hear the term “feminism”, the implication is “batshiite crazy leftist hypocritical feminism”, so keep that in mind whenever you see the term.

September 3, 2008 Posted by | feminism, hypocrisy, moonbats, Palin, shameful | 22 Comments

Career women are awesome…so long as they’re Democrat

Michelle Malkin notes the rank (yet shameless) hypocrisy here.  The summary nails it:

If a Democrat mom chooses public office, she’s a patriot Wonder Woman imbued with Absolute Moral Authority on children’s, health, and social welfare issues.

If a Republican mom chooses public office, she’s the child-neglecting spawn of Satan who has no business debating any domestic public policy because of alleged hypocrisy.

Ain’t feminism grand?


September 2, 2008 Posted by | feminism, hypocrisy, moonbats, shameful | 22 Comments

Dems’ identity politics finally bites them in the posterior

From Neal Boortz:

Attempts to unite the Democrat Party (a big theme here in Denver) have been put on hold while the media figures out what to make of this “Uncle Tom” moment. What happened was that a black Barack Obama delegate apparently called a black Hillary Clinton supporter an “Uncle Tom.”

The conversation took place Saturday night in a hotel lobby in Denver. Delmarie Cobb of Chicago says that Illinois Senate President Emil Jones called her the slur for supporting Hillary Clinton. Jones initially denied calling Cobb an “Uncle Tom” but then tried telling reporters that he called her a “doubting Thomas” and Cobb misheard the comment.

Now the Illinois’ Nation Organization for Women is calling on Jones to resign immediately from the Illinois state Senate for the comment.

If you read the history of The Chosen One’s rise in the Chicago political machine you’ll see the name of Emil Jones everywhere. He’s a old-style Chicago politician who was instrumental in Barack’s political success. The media used to excoriate the Chicago political machine, but no more … not now that the machine’s greatest political success is the Democrat nominee.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is trying to restore party unity … again, one of the themes for the week (besides John McCain’s houses). Members of the Congressional Black Caucus say that Hillary plans to release her pledged delegates to Obama, which “would help Democrats present a unified face to the nation after a primary marked by calls of racism and sexism.” The move is officially expected to happen on Wednesday.

When your party exists to foment identity victimhood, there will inevitably be moments like this.  Serves those jerks right.

August 26, 2008 Posted by | bigotry, feminism, Obama | 2 Comments

Female Representative ticks off the feminists

This story isn’t that big of a deal, but if the feminuts have their camouflage boxers in a bunch, then it brings a smile to my face.  From Politico:

In any other office, it wouldn’t sound as strange: “OK, let me grab the congressman. Hold on.” 

But in this office it does, seeing as how the congressman is Marsha Blackburn, a Republican U.S. representative from Tennessee, who since joining the delegation in 2003 has preferred the masculine form of the title. 

“It’s not something I see as a big deal,” said Blackburn, 55, the only female member of the Tennessee delegation, emphasizing that she’s not trying to make a statement, feminist or otherwise.

But for some, name dropping — specifically the “woman” part — is a touchy subject. There’s a reason for that, say leading female academics, women’s policy analysts and other members: Names do matter.

“When they refer to themselves as congresswoman, this sounds different because it is different,” said Latifa Lyles, of the National Organization for Women, a feminist advocacy group. “I think that is significant,” added Lyles, who supports use of the term “congresswoman.” 

“We don’t have to pretend we’re not women in order to be leaders in this country,” she said. 

Barbara Kellerman, a professor of women’s and government studies at Harvard University, said women — like many minority groups — are repeatedly at odds with issues of nomenclature. 

“Whenever we blend with the male appellation, we are diminishing the significance of the accomplishment,” said Kellerman. …

Here’s a safe bet: if the NOW gang is mad at you, you’re doing something right.

April 17, 2008 Posted by | feminism | 3 Comments

Ancient feminut and General Moonbat: McCain’s service no big whoop

I wish these moonbats would pick a talking point and stick to it!  Apparently, shooting a rice patty and getting shrapnel from it stuck in your #ss carries a lot more CinC street cred than being tortured by the Viet Cong for seven years.  From Allah:

Hey, remember four years ago how we needed a vet at the top of the ticket since only people who’d seen the horrors of war could appreciate the human cost of sending men into battle? Late-breaking caveat: Having seen the horrors of war isn’t quite as valuable experience-wise as picking out White House china patterns. Would a man who endorsed Waffles in 2004 explicitly on the basis of his military service really dare try this double standard vis-a-vis, of all people, John McCain? Believe it:

In the national security business, the question is, do you have — when you have served in uniform, do you really have the relevant experience for making the decisions at the top that have to be made? Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.

If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the us abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she’s the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.

Mind you, this is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee he’s talking about. Consider it a Greenwaldian revision of the chickenhawk meme, one that’s been in the works ever since it dawned on the left that they wouldn’t have a vet at the top of the ticket this time while the GOP very well might: It’s not military service that’s important, it’s the right kind of military service. The Christmas in Cambodia kind. 

There’s more there that you MUST read, but I think you get the idea: in 1992 and 1996, military service was irrelevant; in 2004, it was indeed relevant; and now in 2008, it’s back to being irrelevant again.  Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

March 3, 2008 Posted by | feminism, Hillary, hypocrisy, McCain | 3 Comments

Feminuts henpeck Kennedrunk over Osamabama endorsement

If there’s ever a classic example of how feminists, like other leftards, “feel, not think”, this would be it:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few…

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one)…

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation – to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.”  (As opposed to voting for the first woman who “knows what’s best for us”? – Ed.) 

That’s right, my friends.  You can be a grotesque cretin like Kennedy, but if you pay your “indulgence fee” by voting for The Sister in the race, all is well among the “women” (and I use that term loosely) who look out for “women’s rights”!  That must explain why the NAGs still like Bubba.

Anywho, our trolls “helpful editors” here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS) suggested the womynists add the following bold lines, but the wild-eyed vagitarians weren’t having it:

Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act; ignored the fact that he and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) forced themselves onto a waitress at La Brasserie  in order to make a “waitress sandwich”; and completely and collectively erased the memory of the murder of Mary Jo Kopechne by leaving her to die a slow watery death while he paced the roadside in a drunken stupor to ponder the ramifications on his political career…to name a few.

Damn feminutjob editors!

Irony: it’s not just for breakfast anymore!

January 29, 2008 Posted by | feminism, irony, Kennedrunk, Obama | 5 Comments

Naomi Wolf a Truther

The feminist who tried to make Al Gore an alpha male by wearing “earth tones” is a Troofer nutbar.  Video clip here.  Teaser quote: “Two days after 9-11 I was reading they’re shipping the molten metal out to China!”  Uh…WTF?

Why am I even mentioning her?  Dude, when would I ever pass up an opportunity to make fun of feminists, and do you really expect me to let that “earth tones” thing fly?  😀

December 11, 2007 Posted by | feminism, moonbats | 2 Comments

Feminist accuses Hillary of playing “woman as victim” card when convenient

How’s about some hot “blue on blue” action?  From the LAT:

A prominent feminist, allied with the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards, accused Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday of “disingenuously playing the victim card” by infusing her campaign with messages about gender.

“When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her political elevation into the ‘boys club,’ ” Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote in a posting on a blog of the liberal group Open Left.

“But when she’s challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules,” Michelman said. “It’s trying to have it both ways.” (I’m trying to avoid the juvenile, obligatory “Hillary / ‘both ways'” snark! – Ed.)

The issue erupted after the Clinton campaign complained that male Democratic rivals at Tuesday night’s presidential debate in Philadelphia had subjected her to a “pile-on.”

At the debate, Clinton appeared to give nonspecific answers on several topics, such as on whether she supported the controversial plan of New York’s Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Democratic rivals seized the moment as an opportunity to portray Clinton as a calculating candidate with chameleon-like views.

Clinton’s campaign subsequently posted a video on her website called “The Politics of Pile-On” that showed clips of the men at the debate uttering her name in rapid-fire succession.

On Thursday, she gave a speech at her alma mater, Wellesley College, in which she spoke about her effort to break into “the all-boys club of presidential politics.”

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a top rival to Clinton in the Democratic race, said of the New York senator Friday that when “people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says, ‘Don’t pick on me.’ ”

Michelman reacted similarly.

“At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she’s the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions,” Michelman wrote of Clinton.

“It is not presidential,” Michelman said, adding that women “know better than to use our gender as a shield when the questions get too hot.” … 

Her Highness says that a woman can be president and handle the toughness of the job, but then she cowers behind her gender when things get tough for her.  “I am tough…but don’t get tough with me, because I’ll call you a sexist bully!”  Time will tell if that approach works.

November 5, 2007 Posted by | feminism, Hillary | 1 Comment

Left outraged that Fred Thompson finds his wife attractive

Hilarious and damning observations from Ace:

Deviating from the Bill/Hillary! model they favor.

Dr. Helen wants to know:

When I look at my husband with affection, am I leering?
I guess not since I’m a woman and can do no wrong except for being a right-leaning libertarian. However, if you’re a man, particularly a Republican man, who looks at his wife with affection, you are now accused of “leering”–especially if you are Fred Thompson.

This is yet another example of a woman who deep down believes that men have no right to leer at women, lest it be considered a sex offense. And she is not alone, there are many other women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment–not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman–not even in pictures–with desire in his heart. In their eagar quest to control men’s sexual rights, some “feminist” women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface.

Weird. Feminists continue insisting that it’s empowering to f### everything that moves, except your actual husband, who must be sexually punished as a state-sanctioned enforcer of The Oppressive Patriarchy.

Honestly, The Feminists Who Put Out (TM) are really ruining their “pro-sex street cred” by constantly nattering on about everyone’s base sexual impulses.

Why don’t you all just chill out, pop open a bottle of wine, and dig on the cool grooves of kd lang and leave the rest of us alone?

Ace should have given me the beverage warning before dropping a “STFU and jam to kd lang” reference. That was hilarious!


Am I to understand it’s wrong for Fred Thompson to leer at his wife, and yet the lefty feminists have no problem with Bill Clinton leering at 22-year-old Monica Lewinksy’s thong, nor turning her into a Human Humidor?


I guess Fred Thompson had better start diddling an intern, quick. It’s the only way to insulate himself from charges of lechery.

I’ve always considered feminists to be a bunch of humorless, hypocritical, disingenuous, unintelligent and hyper-emotional nags. Stories like this only confirm that notion.

June 8, 2007 Posted by | Bill Clinton, feminism, Fred Thompson, hypocrisy | 1 Comment

Quote of the day

Some moonbat chick on the dismissal of charges against the Duke lacrosse team:

The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent?

Well…uhhh….yeah. Yeah, Toots, it means exactly that, especially since that Attorney General feller said so:

“We believe that these cases were the tragic result of a rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations,” Cooper said. “Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.”

Cooper’s declaration that the three were innocent — a word prosecutors rarely use — brought a long-awaited freedom for men who lived the past year under the threat of decades in prison.

He jumped through hoops to say that they were exonerated and innocent. He didn’t say “lack of evidence” or “inconsistency in testimony” or any technicalities like that. No, he said “innocent”. Google it, Yummybritches.

Her post is entitled “You will not shame me”, though I’m convinced she left off the words “into accepting reality”.

April 16, 2007 Posted by | Duke lacrosse, feminism, moonbats, quote of the day | Leave a comment

Moonbat "priest": Jesus would have been a NAG

Not content to let John Edwards hog the spotlight trying to divine the intent of the Almighty, leftard “prist” Andrew Greeley decided to weigh in on how Jesus would have been a radical feminist today. From Newsbusters:

NBC’s Today has a special attraction to stories “updating” Jesus, going “On The Road” with The DaVinci Code, and just last week, promoting the idea that the bones of Jesus had been located in an ossuary in Jerusalem. On Wednesday, liberal priest, sociologist and author Andrew Greeley, a longtime NBC favorite, came on the air to promote his new book about Jesus and his relationships with women. Father Greeley “updated” Jesus so dramatically that he practically put him in league with NARAL and Planned Parenthood:

Curry: “He, he also, according to you, had very good relationships with women. Very strong friendships with women.”

Greeley: “If he were alive today and behaved the same way he would be considered to be a radical feminist.”

Curry: “Really?! Well that’s surprising.”

Greeley: “And, and when we, when we consider the era in which he lived and the way women were treated and the male attitude towards them. It’s just absolutely astonishing.”

Curry: “Because he was so open with them? I mean why, why are you saying that?”

Greeley: “Well he had, for example, he has apostles following him wherever he went but also there was a group of women in three different Gospels are mentioned in the same breath with the Apostles. So these, these were women who were important in his, in his mission.”

Many have seen Jesus as a kind of feminist in the times of his earthly ministry, in his condemnation of casual divorce and the prominence of women among his followers. But it’s a wild stretch of the liberal imagination that he would be considered a “radical feminist” by today’s radical feminists. Just start with that all-male cast of apostles. Radical feminists would aspire to drag Jesus before the EEOC.

I don’t know. I mean, I just have a hard time picturing Jesus in combat boots marching around chanting “Hey, hey! (clap, clap) Ho, ho! (clap, clap) This penis party’s got to go! Hey, hey! (clap, clap)…”, or loudly protesting the “phallocracy” in this world today while reeking of incense, or screaming for abortion rights through a rusty megaphone, or promoting lesbian relationships (especially in grade school), or burning bras, or pushing an anti-family message to the ends of the planet, or…well, you get the idea.

March 8, 2007 Posted by | feminism, media bias, moonbats | 2 Comments

Icelandic beauty pageant…not your mama’s pageant!

Those crazy Euros are at it again! From AFP:

An alternative beauty pageant to be held in a remote Icelandic town will reward contestants’ wrinkles, saggy breasts and other bodily imperfections and hopes to challenge Western ideas of beauty, organisers said Wednesday.

Word has it that upon hearing this news, a planeload of Palm Beach condo commandos took off for Reykjavik at the conclusion of Agnes Schloppel’s “Bluehair Bingo Bonanza”. Try saying that five times really fast! Anywho, continuing:

“Anyone can make the rules about what beauty is, we want to change the rules,” one of the contest’s organisers, Matthhildur Helgadottir, told AFP.

Yeah, good luck with that. This is amusing:

The only other stipulation was that contestants had not gone under the plastic surgeon’s knife for cosmetic reasons.

There are people out there who have cosmetic surgery to give themselves saggy breasts and wrinkles? Wow…who’d have thunk it?

Finally, we get some answers as to what infection festered in the mind of this organizer:

The idea for the contest emerged while Helgadottir — a self-confessed feminist — was talking with friends in an Isafjoerdur pub.

You know, if I had a nickel for every time I heard of an Icelandic feminist coming up with a great idea, I’d…well, I wouldn’t have a nickel. Come to think of it, if I had a nickel for every time I heard of an Icelandic feminist, I wouldn’t have a nickel!

March 2, 2007 Posted by | Euros, feminism | 1 Comment

Jeers to Babs Boxer

I gave props to Sen. Barbara Boxer (Moonbat-CA) yesterday for condemning pro-terrorist organization CAIR. The props will be short-lived, as that hateful crazy bitch is once again worthy of our scorn. From FNC:

The White House fired back Friday at Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer’s verbal slap at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calling the California Democrat’s caustic comments about Rice’s family life “outrageous.”

Boxer lit into Rice on Thursday with bitter diatribe during a heated line of questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looking into Iraq policies. At one point, Boxer turned to the broad question of who pays the ultimate price for war. Rice has never married and has no children.

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young,” Boxer said. “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”

“I guess that means I don’t have kids. Was that the purpose?” Rice said. “At the time I just found it a bit confusing, frankly, in retrospect, I thought single women had come further than that. The only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids?”

White House spokesman Tony Snow on Friday called Boxer’s comments “outrageous.”

“I don’t know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it’s outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn’t have children, as if that means that she doesn’t understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism,” Snow told FOX News Talk’s Brian and The Judge.

Boxer sure represented feminism well, didn’t she? For years, the manhating feminist NAGs have been saying that women don’t need to have parasites (or, as normal Americans call them, husbands and children) depriving them of the life they want to lead, and that women can be successful professionals, and they don’t need to take any guff from men (unless the women are named Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, or Juanita Broaddrick, in which case they are casualties of the gender war).

Yet here you have a woman (and an ethnic one, too) who has had to overcome prejudice and obstacles to get an education, become a distinguished professional, and earn the Secretary of State post (becoming the first black woman to do so), and Babs the Bitch is insulting her for not having any parasites (or, as normal Americans call them, husbands and children)? Apparently, feminists ignore their own rhetoric when it comes to women who don’t tote the leftist handbag.

So were the troops glad that Babs had their backs? Um, hardly:

One Vietnam War veteran — and recent American Legion national commander — who now has a son serving in Afghanistan said he was put off by Boxer’s comments.

Thomas Bock, 59, of Aurora, Colo., said he heard about the exchange on local radio and thought, “Wow! What a terrible thing to say, that only those people that have family members in the military have a price to pay. This is our freedom, this is our county. And the sooner that we stand up and stand for our country, the sooner we’ll be able to bring our troops home.”

He said despite the fact that his son, helicopter pilot Army Capt. Adam Bock, is back in a combat zone, “I think she [Boxer] missed the whole point. … You’ve got to focus on what the real issue is, and the real issue is the global war on terror, not a personal price or the personal sacrifice. This is a sacrifice for our country.

Damn skippy it is, Mr. Bock.

January 12, 2007 Posted by | feminism, hypocrisy, moonbats | 1 Comment