Roger L. Simon: If anyone wonders why I sometimes call some liberals reactionaries, here's an example

"Feminist" Barbara Boxer attacks Condoleeza Rice because Rice is single and doesn't have children.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

People like Boxer and the dork from Oregon who complained of Klingons in the White House really are from another planet.

Back in the day, a hero of the progressive left said "By any means necessary." That part has been remembered.

Back then, there was something noble and righteous associated with the phrase. Now the same tactical mindset simply supports a drive to power.

Boxer is a perfect lab rat for this thesis. With no intellect to disrupt the progressive left programming, she perfectly acts out the will of that particular gestalt. Perpetuating the paradigm is the Darwinian imperative.

Letting Boxer sit on the Foreign Relations Committee is an act of dangerous proportions.

Yet, the citizens of the great state of California return her to office; California
gets what it deserves; a raving loonie reckless in language and thought.

So when the Dems conjure up the likes of Stom and Jesse and others of the conservative strip, the counterpoint is the Queen of Daft.

I did like the way Condi accepted a Fox interview and gracefully in the fullest sense of the word, dumped on her comments.

But, of course, over the past few years [think 9/11 Commission], the Dems like to beat up on Condi. Remember that hero of supposed moderation, Senator Bob "I am a Vietnam hero" Kerrey and the Darth Vader of the law, Richard Ben Veniste. Heros to the left but no gentlemen; substituting bombast and shouts for cool cross examination. There may be some sexual component here which is passing me by.

Well, Boxer made the Chickenhawk Statement with
a woman, which is a bizarre kind of equality, and it's sex consistent (not gender).

If the Chickenhawk proposition is that those who have no personal stake in a war can't favor the war, why can those who have no personal stake in the war dispute the war?

Liberals have raced right past reactionary to something even worse. Still looking for the word.

I have always thought Boxer to be one of the biggest jerks in the senate, now she is number one BY far, even with Dick "our military are terrorists" Durbin still in congress.

Hmmmm. So I guess if you have no kids, you can't opine AGAINST the war on terror, since it wouldn't be any of your children being immolated in the next WTC bombing, right?

Roger is right. Boxer's a reactionary, and a friend to the English language. But for Boxer, the words "crone", "termagant", "bitch", "shrew", and "harridan" would be useless. Thanks, Babs.

Well, the average conservative surely has more kids than the average "progressive." And even if you hold number of kids constant, the children of conservatives are certainly more likely to serve in the military than the children of "progressives."

A liberal-arts professor at an Ivy League school has a vanishingly small probability of having a child who will ever serve in the military. For a Catholic factory worker in the South, the probability must be at least an order of magnitude higher. Thus, by Boxerian logic, the vote of the worker should be counted 10X that of the professor when it comes to military affairs.

Boxer's attack on Condi is the logical extension of the dream the Democratic Party has been pursuing for decades: an America turned into a neo-Hobbesian world in which every group is at the throat of every other group. In this world, there is no such thing as problem-solving; there is only the internal war of all against all.

Terrye-- Another corollary to your point is that Roman Catholic nuns are worthless, since most don't have children (some orders accept widows whose children are grown). Does Boxer really want to dump on these women too?

Now guys, don't you have sympathy for poor Boxer, given her situation? Even with the repeated statement that she will not run, the prospect of a Condi ticket (pres or veep) scare the daylights out of them. So remember that when they start the demonization early, it's only because they need a head start. Of course, with a Boxer and Condi comparison, I don't think any head start would be adequate.

Expected nothing less from Boxer. Unfortunately, this is probably only the beginning of her crusade against the conservative middle. If I pretend honesty, I should say that I am surprised at her ignorance and plain poor politics of her statements - and she will make more... Should be a fun 2 years or so...

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Seriously, did you ever watch the obnoxious, morally superior deliberately antagonistic nature in which tirades such as this are invariably delivered?

It is rather like the chickenhawk argument. Well I did not actually come out and SAY that all people in government should have served in the military now did I? After all that would render Hillary unacceptable. No instead I will simply point out that if you have not been shot at then you really do not have a right to....whatever.

Well, not only that..but think of the young women who do not want to have children because the world is such a horrid and wicked place and global warming is going to kill us all anyway. They have the right mindset for the progressive left and here they are being disounted for a lack of personal suffering.

Get serious, or if not that, less credulous. Boxer is a numbskull Senator from California, not a moral philosopher or an epic poet. If she wants to ruminate on the tragic life, let her do it with our enemies, not Ms. Rice.

I'm one who "pays the price, I'm willing to pay it, and a sense of injustice about it is the first sign of your own corruption. Good grief.

Nothing in Boxer's past would indicate that she's capable of deep thought on any issue whatever, but let's assume she's being honest here. She "feels" as if she's not paying any price, nor is Rice, for the war.

Here's the point with Boxer, and every liberal of her kind. Rather than alter herself to alleviate her discomfort, and perform some compensatory service, she needs to alter the event that causes her discomfort, and without any knowledge whatever of others' conduct or spiritual efforts, revile them for her own faults.

January 12, 2007: If anyone wonders why I sometimes call some liberals reactionaries, here's an example

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post