Lesson: You Can't "Win" with Feminists
Irony of ironies -- if yesterday's reports are true, and The White House really did limit its consideration only to women, it's certainly paying the price.
Some feminists -- who'd have been the first to cry "sexism" had the President chosen Judges Luttig or McConnell -- are criticizing the President for having chosen a woman (and stooping to a little sexist language themselves).
The laughable Tina Brown has the hypocritical nerve to use Lady Thatcher (someone for whom she would have had nary a kind word in the 1980's) for her own agenda:
Happy Birthday, Lady T -- and hail to you and all the women who've gone before! You won us the freedom to say that if opting for a Harriet Miers means we risk getting not just a sycophant but a stem-cell-banning, abortion-denying, Bible-thumping presidential sycophant, maybe we'd just as soon have a guy.
Ruth Marcus approaches the problem from the "underqualification" angle, moaning mournfully that, "It's a recognition that while gender counts, it's not enough." Translation: Picking a woman doesn't "count" unless it's a woman I like. (Had the President chosen an unreconstructed liberal, it's hard to imaginen Marcus penning such a line).
In the end, perhaps there are two lessons to be learned. First: No matter what they do, Republicans will never receive credit from the "feminist left" for being woman-friendly (the treatment of Condoleezza Rice should have been ample proof of that). Second: It appears that two members in good standing on the left have just provided carte blanche for the President to ignore gender considerations in his future nominations. Let's not let them forget it.
Some feminists -- who'd have been the first to cry "sexism" had the President chosen Judges Luttig or McConnell -- are criticizing the President for having chosen a woman (and stooping to a little sexist language themselves).
The laughable Tina Brown has the hypocritical nerve to use Lady Thatcher (someone for whom she would have had nary a kind word in the 1980's) for her own agenda:
Happy Birthday, Lady T -- and hail to you and all the women who've gone before! You won us the freedom to say that if opting for a Harriet Miers means we risk getting not just a sycophant but a stem-cell-banning, abortion-denying, Bible-thumping presidential sycophant, maybe we'd just as soon have a guy.
Ruth Marcus approaches the problem from the "underqualification" angle, moaning mournfully that, "It's a recognition that while gender counts, it's not enough." Translation: Picking a woman doesn't "count" unless it's a woman I like. (Had the President chosen an unreconstructed liberal, it's hard to imaginen Marcus penning such a line).
In the end, perhaps there are two lessons to be learned. First: No matter what they do, Republicans will never receive credit from the "feminist left" for being woman-friendly (the treatment of Condoleezza Rice should have been ample proof of that). Second: It appears that two members in good standing on the left have just provided carte blanche for the President to ignore gender considerations in his future nominations. Let's not let them forget it.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home