"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Friday, January 12, 2007

Republicans who freak out when you get too close to the truth
Posted by Jill | 9:39 PM
John Aravosis made an interesting observation today about the wingnuts having the vapors and fanning themselves on a chaise longue over Barbara Boxer pointing out that neither she nor Condoleeza Rice has a personal stake in the escalation of the Iraq War.

Here is what Boxer said:

"Who pays the price [for Bush's incompetence in Iraq]? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."


Now, that's just a fact. Neither one of these women has a loved one who's going to die in this war. What's the problem?

Apparently there is one, because today the New York Post was up in arms:

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.


Now would someone please tell me how pointing out a FACT is an "attack"? I know that this is how Republicans work, that Democrats doing their oversight job is "partisanship" and pointing out differences in viewpoints from the Bush Party Line is "attacking", but for a bunch of people who like to rattle their sabers and talk tough, these people sure are a bunch of whiny-ass titty babies.

I'm a childless woman, and I'm the first one who'll tell you that I don't have a personal stake in this war. So what's the problem with pointing out that a woman without children doesn't have children? The only time I ever felt "attacked" because I don't have children was when a friend's daughter passed away suddenly last year and other women said "You can't possibly understand what it's like, because you don't have children." Whereupon I responded by saying, "And neither can you, because you are going to go home tonight and tuck BOTH of YOUR healthy, alive kids into bed."

Funny, the Post didn't have a problem when Laura Bush said the following about Dear Condi last December:

"Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate (for President), is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."


So just who's attacking here? And why so defensive?

John thinks he knows why:

I think they freaked out because for years there have been rumors - unsubstantiated from what I know - about Condi's true sexual orientation. She doesn't appear to date men. She's around 52 years old and has never been married. Her life's dream is to become the commissioner of the National Football League. And she had a very strange exchange on FOX News a few years back in which one of the FOX hosts seemed to be trying to set Condi up on a date with a female anchor at FOX (true story).

None of this proves that Condi is a lesbian. But it explains why there are rumors about Condi, rumors about which the White House is most certainly aware.

Which brings us back to our original question: Why are the White House and conservatives so freaked out about this innocuous quote from Barbara Boxer?

One thing I've learned is that conservatives flip out the most when they think you've found their weak spot. For example, when people questioned Bush's intelligence at the beginning of his term (pre-9/11), the conservatives flipped out (remember when the Canadian press secretary mentioned that Bush was a bit of a dodo?). The conservatives didn't flip out because they thought the charge was wrong or rude or inappropriate - but rather, they flipped out because they knew the charge to be true, and incredibly damaging to the president. After all, imagine how history might have come out differently had the American people known in 2000 what an arrogant dimwit our president-to-be really was? The pattern is repeated often in conservative circles. The moment an enemy hits close to home, conservatives flip out in order to ensure the enemy never dares go there again.

What that suggests in the case of the Condi uproar is that, I think, the White House and conservative activists like FOX News are deathly afraid of Condi's unmarried status and what it might suggest about her sexual orientation. Condi is a potential future Republican presidential, or VP, candidate. She is a rising star (or at least was until the Iraq fiasco) in a party that has few stars left. And if Condi were to turn out to be a bit light in the Manolos, it wouldn't go over too well with the family values crowd that controls the Republican party.

That is the only reason I can think of as to why the White House and conservative activists are freaking out over a nothing-quote from Barbara Boxer. The quote is unintentionally based on the underlying truth that this 52-year-old, single, football-loving lady doesn't seem to have much of an interest in men. And while I tended to be agnostic on the Condi-is-gay rumors up until this point, the bizzarely vicious reaction of the White House and FOX News and Matt Drudge to this episode is starting to make me wonder if they know something I don't.


And before the wingnuts get all up in arms that I am somehow "attacking" Condoleeza Rice because of her sexual orientation (thereby conceding that she's gay), let me make one thing clear: I don't give a damn what her sexual orientation is or that of anyone else. I happen to think she's fucking the President, which would make it hard for her to be a butch lesbian, now, wouldn't it? And frankly, I really don't care if she's fucking the President, except to the extent that it affects her ability to do her job (if indeed she has any ability to do her job, which given her performance at yesterday's hearing and at the 9/11 Commission hearings, is highly doubtful).

But there's something about this wingnut defensiveness that is right out of the same playbook that has them honing in on their opponents' strengths and turning them into weaknesses; it's a race to build a fence around things they think are off-limits in their own, even if they are fair game in others.

And of course that kind of defensiveness is commonly found in homophobes, who are usually people with doubts about their own sexuality. Marc Maron explained this phenomenon about 2 minutes and 20 seconds into his January 6, 2006 appearance on Conan O'Brien's show in the context of straight mens' reaction to people asking if they've seen Brokeback Mountain:



0 comments
Bookmark and Share