Can Republicans in the House be as stupid as they act? You keep hoping for a sign of rational discourse and a tiny hint of wisdom, but it just never happens. They are suffering not only from a Solomon deficit but an abject lack in common sense.
Why the H – E – Double Toothpick would they have a hearing about women’s health, contraception, etc. and not have any women as “experts”? I guess the male Republicans in the House are quite familiar with pregnancy, labor, nursing a child, that time of the month, and suffering debilitating endometriosis all from personal experience, right? If they did, indeed, have two token women on the panel, why weren’t all the experts women?
They blew it this time.
It doesn’t matter what side of the issue you are on, this just plain old makes the GOP look exactly the way Dems are going to try and portray them.
S – T – U – P – I – D S – T – U – P – I – D S – T – U – P – I – D S – T – U – P – I – D
STUCK ON STUPID
Just look at this:
This one is going to leave a mark. And – it should. I really don’t care if this is a contraception issue, or a religious issue. The real issue here is the absolute arrogance on the part of
“…From the start of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the contraception mandate, it was clear that the optics of a male-dominated hearing were going to be a problem for the GOP — even though the second panel of experts, which testified later, included women. Photographs of the swearing-in went viral by the afternoon, being forwarded on feminist Listservs and linked to in social media.
The image of men dominating the discussion about women’s health, say those on the left, may galvanize women voters in the way that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas did in 1991.That incident is widely credited with the election of a large number of Democratic women the next year…”
The vile arrogance of this is disturbing. Oh, wait, I know, as good little conservative Republican women, we are to sit back and let the big smart men pat us on our heads, and quite often on the tush, and tell us to be good little girls. We’re not to be feminist. It’s bad for the country. We’re not to speak out, and we certainly must never ever cross the line and utter a feminist thought.
Well – this panel is about religion. I guess women don’t have any rights here, either. I guess women don’t know much about ethics, either. I guess only men have the right to have their opinion heard, no matter what side of the political fence they are on, liberal or conservative.
This is about another government dole, a handout, something for nothing, freebie, new entitlement. Shut up about the religious end of it and attack it as an entitlement. Approach it this way. Stop being such ignorant Neanderthals about contraception.
There is more to this. It is about a tendency for certain conservatives to think that women should almost be wrapped up in a burka and kept at home, barefoot and pregnant. Unfortunately what Issa did on Thursday simply reinforces these dreadful ideas.
“...“Women [at CPAC] will be future leaders, too, and I was dismayed to see how many of them either looked frumpish or like two-bit whores,” wrote conservative blogger Melissa Clouthier. “If, at the number one conservative conference of the year, young men and women are looking and acting like the cast of Jersey Shore, it’s time to reset the compass.”
Clouthier went on to say that females should not show cleavage or wear skirts shorter than three finger-widths above the knee. “Bend at the knee,” she lectures. “No, I don’t want to see your butt.”
The two articles sparked a storm of debate on the conservative blogosphere that has generated growing controversy over the past two days.
“There is a distinct kernel of truth to the charge of caddishness/looseness. And if the undertow Erick and Melissa are looking at is the same one I’ve witnessed, it’s been going on for years,” wrote blogger Little Miss Attila.
“I was not among the scantily clad ladies at CPAC. I’m a happily married woman, and even when I was single I always tried to dress in a way that would not embarrass myself or my parents,” commented Lonely Conservative.
Another blogger scathingly lashed out at a female staffer for HotAir – a conservative website – who he claimed showed too much leg in an interview with presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
“You are a Catholic, try actually dressing like one and not like some office ‘MILF’ looking for a place up the corporate ladder,” wrote the Thoughts and Rantings blog. “One thing I will give to the Jewish people and to the Muslim people; at least they are sincere about what they believe and actually act like it.”
But there were plenty of conservative dissenters who took a much more laissez-faire approach to the whole issue.
“In my opinion, CPAC is about politics, not parenting. If it takes hundreds of new folks with perhaps more libertarian, than traditional, leanings to infuse a more powerful right in America, I’ll take it,” dissented Dan Riehl at RiehlWorldView.
“I also understand that not every girl who goes out clubbing in high heels and a skintight dress with a daring display of décolletage is a hussy, a floozy or a tramp,” wrote Robert Stacy McCain. “However unwise or indecorous it may be to follow the fashion trend toward bare-as-you-dare styles, in some sense it’s like makeup and jewelry: Items that were once frowned upon as whorish, tacky and/or ostentatious are now acceptably fashionable.”…”
This just looks bad.
I think the whole church/thing is a crock, anyway. I like what Jazz Shaw wrote:
“…This brings us to the second – and far more tangled – point. And it involves the thorny old question of the separation of church and state. Given my libertarian leanings, my general feelings are that as long as churches are acting like churches, the government needs to keep its nose out of their business. When they are preaching the Gospel, saving souls, etc. they should not be taxed or watched very closely by the government, aside from violations of common criminal law. (This changes when they start trying to influence elections from the pulpit in my opinion, but that’s an argument for another day.)
But what about when they begin engaging in business? There are many people who set up businesses with no religious ties, providing goods or services, and the government is involved in their operations to varying degrees by default. There are taxes to be collected and paid, minimum working conditions and regulations for employees, licenses and inspections… all manner of things. It’s one of the facts of doing business in America….”
Even if the discussion is church/state, why the heck aren’t women as qualified as men to enter in to the discussion. Does the absence of certain anatomical features render women incapable making a rational statement and viable discussion point?
Instead of keeping the discussion about free contraceptives for all, which is what the discussion should have been, they turned it into a public relations disaster. It is NOW about those nasty Republicans in the House hating woman.
This just doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s just plain embarrassing.
Totally, completely, utterly clueless.