Boxer and the sonless presidents

When I read this story my first thought was: “only super-evangelical freakshows like the Jim Phelps crew turn on a woman for not having children….”

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

“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.”

Breathtaking.

For those keeping “moral authority” score – Mo Dowd said Cindy Sheehan, having lost a son in Iraq has “absolute moral authority,” as concerns her demands for withdrawal. Mothers of dead sons and daughters who SUPPORT the action in Iraq, do not appear, at least by Dowd’s lights, to have the same moral authority.

Now, according to Boxer, if you have not had children – or if your children are not of an age to serve in the military – than you have no moral authority to wage war or defend a war.

Harry Truman only had daughter, Margaret – she couldn’t be drafted to fight in Europe or the Pacific, so he had no risk of losing a child at war…how the hell did he have the moral authority to drop a bomb? Lyndon Johnson had only daughters, no sons to draft or put into harm’s way. I guess he had no business trying to deal with the Vietnam war that started on John F. Kennedy’s watch. Kennedy, of course, had two small children not at risk of war.

As near as I can tell, if a President Hillary (with undraftable daughter who is disinterested in military service) were defending the war – as she did clear up until just a few months ago – no one would be wondering if she had the right to do so.

Feminist Boxer, aside from making a deplorable personal observation regarding Dr. Rice, is doing one of those “flipping double standards” that had so much to do with me leaving the left.

Condi rather “embodies” the whole feminist ideal, doesn’t she? Educate yourself and work and put your personal life aside to achieve, achieve, achieve…for decades the feminists carried on that having children did not make one a successful woman, that too often children held one back and that motherhood was not the measure of a woman.

In fact, I remember when I announced I would not be returning to work after the birth of my first child, having to endure a feminist lecture by a woman from the next office who was miffed at me. In her harangue against stay-at-home moms, she veered off and started to carry on about how much she resented poeple who said things like, “only a mother would understand….”

“A woman does not have to be a mother to understand any human concept,” she scolded me angrily, even though I was just taking a lunch break in the sun and had not said a word to her about the wisdom of motherhood.

Now, suddenly, if you don’t have children you are not fit to talk and you have no moral authority. If you have no children, prepare to have that fact flung in your face by feminists, if they find it politically expediant to do so.

Only a 21st Century so-called liberal would say such a rotten thing to Condi. Only a 21st Century so-called liberal would get away with it, too. I see no hue and cry from the feminists, of course, and not much coverage byn the press, of course. Can you imagine how this would be wall-to-wall covered if a Republican had dared to say such a thing to an unmarried, childless Democrat?

And you know damn well – we all do – that if Condi were to run for president, the first thing the dems would do is play the gay card…”well, she’s not married…she has no kids…we’re just saying…and you know, there’s nothing wrong with being gay…unless you’re the wrong sort of gay.

Ms Boxer has just demonstrated how the feminists and the double-standard left got me stepping rightward. Hot Air has the video.

Kim at Wizbang, who lost a family member in Iraq in November, (so I hereby confer upon her “absolute moral authority”) says Boxer should apologize to Rice.

And Townhall, Lorie Byrd writes a piece that is somewhat related in that she wonders when the Democrats “support” will mean more than just “sympathy.” She also has further thoughts and a great closer, here: what does Boxer’s comment say about all those who think Oprah would be the best president ever? Why is it that only liberal women who choose the feminist ideal lifestyle get any praise for it? Liberals evidently want to keep conservative women barefoot and pregnant.

AJ has more thoughts on Boxer and the difference between “paying the price” and “sacrificing.”

Fausta says, now childlessness is an issue?

Varifrank has a visual aid for BoxerPolitical Pit Bull says he doesn’t think Boxer was dissing Condi, just bringing up and old and weak argument.

The Political Pit Bull says he doesn’t think Boxer was dissing Condi so much as making a stupid, tired argument. Maybe she was doing both? :-)

Ed Driscoll has the irresistable header I wish I’d thought of!

More:
Paragraph Farmer
The Wide Awake Cafe
Obi’s Sister
Irish Spy