Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Re: Curtain Call for Dennis the Menace

A couple of minor complaints were directed at my recent posting about Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s loss in the recent Democrat primary election. Interestingly, they weren’t concerned with any injustice I might have inflicted upon Kucinich.

Rather, they focused on my next to last paragraph, which read:

“That’s why I was miffed when [Kucinich] was recently ousted from Congress by another long-term Democrat incumbent, Marcy Kaptur (the two of them having been shoved together by redistricting). Kaptur may be every bit as silly as Kucinich, but I much prefer office-holding libs to be men rather than women. On the whole, women are generally viewed as being less rational and more emotional than men. So it’s considered only natural for them to be more liberal in their politics. In fact, in polite society, it can be considered unfair and discourteous to hold a woman accountable for having voted as a flaming lib. (“The poor dear; she just doesn’t know any better.”) As a result, it’s harder to unseat them once they’re in office. Look at how long it took Ohio Republicans to remove Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.”

Now I’ll readily concede, I should have phrased that part more carefully. So let’s see if I can clear things up here.

Taking the last point first, I was misconstrued as saying Jean Schmidt was a flaming lib in the manner of Kaptur. Let me assure one and all, that's not an opinion I hold. Schmidt has long represented me as an office-holder, and admittedly, I have had major concerns with some of her actions. But no, Schmidt hasn’t been a flaming lib in Congress, nor is she anything remotely similar to Kaptur.

But that leads to the next point. For years, Schmidt represented me in a fashion that was far less conservative than I would’ve preferred. While she wasn’t a flaming lib, she was certainly too lib for my tastes. That’s why I mentioned her within the context. It bothered me that it took my district, one of the most conservative in the state, so many years to replace her with someone more conservative. But sadly, because of double standards, that's too often the way things run.

In our culture, as I complained, “it can be considered unfair and discourteous to hold a woman accountable for having voted as a flaming lib.” Now if I had it to do over, I would drop the word “flaming,” so no one would think I was applying it to Schmidt. But if you think it isn’t harder to hold a woman politician accountable for acting like a lib than a man, then think again. There’re reasons why many of the more liberal Republican U.S. Senators are women: as in Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

I hope no one here wants to seriously argue that women aren’t “generally viewed as being less rational and more emotional than men.” Or that anyone will contend it’s not "considered only natural" for women "to be more liberal in their politics.” Feminists might hate these generalizations, but they are commonly held perceptions. If instead, I had said, women typically display greater sensitivity and awareness to others than do men, I doubt I would’ve heard a peep of objection. But in the same way, I would only have been noting a generally recognized difference between the genders. In any case, let me state, I've no problem supporting women in politics, as long as they're conservative. Do you have a candidate in the mold of Margaret Thatcher or Sarah Palin? Hey, I'm all ears.

Finally, let me note where I really slipped up. I threw in, “The poor dear; she just doesn’t know any better.” Now for having repeated that piece of condescension without explanation, I should do some penance. But please understand, that’s not my kind of expression. Rather, it's something I once heard a well-meaning woman say in defense of a certain lady politician – one who, let's say, will remain nameless.


  1. Great piece, Rush.

  2. I found that Kucinich did not cause me as much angst as Kaptur -- either. I don't think it was the gender thing but rather every now and then, loony or not, Dennis could show a little candor -- on rare occasions.
    Jean Schmidt was my congresswomen as well -- IMO she generally voted OK. She also often spoke before thinking, too often seemed unprepared, and was put in to office by "the machine" because it was her turn, when better conservative candidates were available --esp. the first term. Consider that her predecessors in that seat Gradison and Portman -- enough said.

    As to you "sins"....I say yes indeed, there ARE some women in politics who just don't know any better -- and some men too. So I don't see the problem -- you were talking about a woman in this case eh?
    I doubt you would hear any men taking issue if you had said "the poor guy; he just doesn't know any better" now would you? Some women need to get some thicker skin?

  3. Jean Schmidt was ranked by National Journal as #7 conservative...100% ratings from Right to Life and National Taxpayers Union...she scored higher than Paul Ryan in Club for Growth... Your new boy, Dr. Death, is gonna have a tough time filling those high heels.....I bet he doesn't come close to the Schmidt Standard of Conservatism...

    1. I do not dispute your concerns and in fact we voted for Jean in the primary mostly because she was a known entity. My point was she could have been a much more proactive congressperson and give people more reason to support her. Mys sense is that this is why she lost. Dr. Brad Wenstrup was not "my boy" -- but I'll support him in November.

  4. Sexist blogger defends sexist post by apologizing for calling Schmidt an irrational liberal and not an emotionally irrational conservative. Wow.

    1. Well, hello Modern! Still can't stay away huh? Why are you so obsessed with us?

  5. Modern or not, it was a pretty sexist post. He kinda loses his point when he makes the whole "women are more emotional and irrational than men" comment...

    1. He said,..."I hope no one here wants to seriously argue that women aren’t “generally viewed as being less rational and more emotional than men. Or that anyone will contend it’s not "considered only natural" for women "to be more liberal in their politics.” Feminists might hate these generalizations, but they are commonly held perceptions..."

      He said GENERALLY VIEWED as less rational etc. than men. He did not say that he shared that view --did he? So how can you say he "seriously argued" it?

      Also, I would say, judging from all the screaming and yelling by the "feminists" talking heads everyday that THEY think women are unfairly viewed.

      I don't share that view i.e., that women are unfairly viewed or unfairly treated. In contrast, it seems to me that it is men who get the short end of the stick these days in most arenas.

      I think women just keep putting up that old, me-as-the-victim scarecrow to have something to beat upon. And why not? That is the "game" racial minorities have been playing for decades wouldn't you say? Works for them.

  6. Really Fargo? Really? Women don't get the short end of the stick? Then explain to me why they still earn 75 cents on the dollar that their male counterparts earn doing the same job?

    Why is it the end of the western world if insurance companies pay for the pill, but it is perfectly fine for the same companies to pay for Viagra?

    Seriously, you need to run to the corner store and buy yourself a clue...

  7. Typical dimwit liberal talking points!

    Women in the same job as men get the same pay --if fact often they are paid better. The differential in AVERAGE pay is due to life choices that women tend voluntarily to make.

    Viagra is a drug used to cure a physiological medical problem -- impotency.

    Birth control is to regulate pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a disease.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel. Have a nice clueless day.

  8. Fargo, my wife is on the pill to regulate her period, not to prevent pregnancy. You see sometimes womens hormones go completely out of whack and instead of having her period once a month she was having it two, sometimes three times a month, complete with some major heavy bleeding. Twice a month she was going to the doctor for blood infusions. Her DOCTOR put her on the pill as a way to avoid her having a total hysterectomy, since they like to avoid giving those to women under 40 if at all possible. Therefore she is on the pill for a MEDICAL reason. The inability for wingnuts to see the forest through the trees is insane. To prevent pregnancy, I had a vasectomy, which was covered by my insurance by the way. Using your logic, it shouldn't have been covered...

    Also I never said I was a liberal, I'm just a big believer in people being treated fairly, and I would like to see the republican party step into the 21st century instead of hanging out in the 19th...

    1. That is incorrect -- Mr. Anonymous. By my logic of course your wife should be covered for this under her insurance for a the medical benefits that a the artificial estrogen would give her system to maintain homeostasis. You said it yourself -- she is taking it for MEDICAL reasons -- not to facilitate her sex life. This is a red-herring because you have changed the issue. I personally know of no republican, or anyone really, who would argue against covering your wife for this use of the pill.

      The issue of your wife is not being considered in the public discussion. No organization I know of including the Catholic Church is against synthetic estrogens for medical reasons -- and I sure you know that. That has nothing to do with the phony issue that Obozo, Pelosi, and the progressives using Saint Sandra Fluke for -- eh?

      Not all insurance plans cover optional surgery which a vasectomy clearly is. Do you think your insurance should also pay for the surgery to reverse the process should you want to try to restore you fertility again?

      Sure we can pass a law to FORCE every insurance company to pay for EVERY medical procedure for EVERY person -- should we include insect repellant,band aids, and sun screen as well? In fact, I think they did a law like that -- it's called Obama-care for short. The question everyone but the incompetent fools in the Obama Administration are asking is: how do you plan to pay for it?

      Maybe you think the 1% folks who already pay over 40% of the federal taxes should just pay more? But oh BTW could they also keep on starting up new small businesses and hiring the 99% -- of better yet provide the additional welfare?

      In your view (I assume) it is the Democrats, who are systematically reversing and eliminating all of the personal liberties our forebears left England to escape, and fought wars to preserve, who are ones in the 21st century?

      With all due respect, Sandra Fluke and her sex life notwithstanding, I guess I will take the 19th century if those are my choices...personal liberty versus the cradle-to-grave nanny state......

  9. She may not have been a "lib", but she was one mean-as-sin old bag.


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.