NY Times Blog asks:
>>Republicans accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of putting on royal airs because her cross-country travel could require a larger military jet than the one used since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to ferry Speaker J. Dennis Hastert home to Illinois. Ms. Pelosi and fellow Democrats said that House security officials insisted that she travel in a government plane and that if she had her way she would fly on commercial craft. They suggested that Republicans were hypocritical, scheming sexists trying to deny the speaker the same protection afforded her male predecessor.
Do you think Ms. Pelosi is being criticized unfairly because she’s a woman?<<
My response:
No, I think Pelosi is being treated unfairly because she's a democrat, not a woman. But in the end it's all for the best because the republicans who thought they had something to crow about have made asses of themselves.
The difference that Pelosi's gender brings in is actually a positive (for her). A man in the same situation simply looks like he's suffering politics as usual, whereas a woman appears to be being victimized based on gender. Hillary Clinton enjoyed the same kind of inverted sexism in her first senatorial campaign and probably will again in the 2008 general election. It's a particularly convenient mechanism for women who are neophites in a particular political position (candidate, speaker). It's also fun to see what is always an uncalled for attack self destruct.
Republicans are getting started early in losing the female vote for 2008.
4 comments:
I don't see the Republicans as having made asses of themselves over this teapot tempest. The truth behind who actually requested use of the larger jet, and it's a B-737 by the way, ridiculously larger than her needs require, will never make it to the Fox News watchers/Rush Limbaugh listeners. All they know is that Princess Nancy wanted an Air Force One type pimped-out ride, and that she got it.
Truth means nothing, perception means everything, Mssr. Perceptipotomus...
Well, you're right about perception, but that depends on the "news" outlet you choose. People who are watching Fox to begin with will see every event through the fun-house mirror they present. Anyone reading anything left of (and including) the NY Times and Washington Post will see how petty and stupid this thing is.
As I understood the situation A) She didn't want to use Air Force travel in the first place and B) Her only specific request was for a non-stop flight to CA and the only plane made available to her for that purpose was the 737.
Hey it beats a lear jet provided by Phillip Morris or Smith & Wesson.
This was a pre-conceived trap that the republicans had ready to spring. What's asinine is that they put so much thought into it. Just a ham-fisted attempt to distract from a legislative agenda, a war, a lack of real candidates..etc etc.
I get my dose of the Fox filter on the holidays when chatting with my neo-con father-in-law.
My latest revelation is that apparently all evidence of global warming is "El Nino" :).
You know it's so tempting to under-value their influence when you see how cartoonish the thinking is, but of course, then you look at their numbers.
Yes, it was ham-fisted, and it was stupid, but it was brilliant and evil as hell at the same time!
Karl Rove has a beautiful mind when it comes to distracting the populace. The populace is easily distracted, as evidenced by your comments about Global Warming, El Nino, and your easily distracted in-law.
I listen to the Big Fat Stupid Drug Addict, (Limbaugh,) on occasion, and he does a hell of a job at distraction as well.
The sheer number of the distracted is truly alarming.
Post a Comment