Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns


Kathleen Parker writes that Hillary’s "soul-sister moment" was "like watching a whiffed high-five, embarrassing as watching middle-aged white guys playing air guitar. Stop it." Read it all. I like Parker. A pretty woman who writes! Know wuddumsayin?

Discussions - 20 Comments

Nah, what I wanna know is, are we backstabbing conservatives gonna crucify Bush over these the same way ya did Lott over this error in sound judgment. At that time, Mr, Scrhamm opined:

It is shocking, is it not, how foolish and thoughtless some Republican politicians can be?

Let us consider, not so thoughtlessly, how Bush and a Republican House has bastardized Reagan’s "city on a hill." Let us consider, not so thoughtlessly, how Bush and Republican House eagerly signed into law the greatest entitlement bonanza since LBJ’s Great Society programme. Let us never forget they acted in a "shocking" fashion.

Lest we forget!

I agree that Bush is pretty disappointing, but the guy has photo ops with everyone and his brother. All presidents do that. I am not sure you can throw him to the wolves for this. The entitlement bonanza I am with you on, though.

"A pretty womona who writes...."

Wow, that IS extraordinary, isn’t it? Since most pretty women are also kind of, well, silly and stupid? They aren’t there to think, and make us think. They are there to look at!

And smart women -- well, they tend to the ugly, mannish side. Male wannabes. Being smart and articulate, they make better men than they do women. Heck, if they wanted to be women, they would be pretty!

I’m glad that Dr. Schramm has provided us with another learning moment!

Reading this I’m feeling like I’m awaking from a bad dream:

During the first five years of President Bush’s presidency, non-defense discretionary spending rose 27.9 percent, far more than the 1.9 percent growth during President Clinton’s first five years.

Forget the silly eavesdropping crap, we conservatives have sold our souls to the Welfare State for a bit of security from al Qaeda! This is utterly disgusting, folks! Amid all the GOP self-congratulatory backslapping, watching as the Democrats implode, I’m seriously beginning to wonder who are the real fools in this tale?

Great article, and though Steele’s is better overall, you can’t beat that money quote about middle-aged men playing air guitar. That nails it. Hillary is going to have a long way to go to overcome the gag factor. Her devotees will never abandon her, but regular people will have the same reaction as Parker when they see that sad attempt at pandering. When Hillary runs, the GOP should play that clip again and again and again. Better than Dukakis’ GI Joe moment in the tank. Better than Gore’s inventing the internet. Better than Kerry’s magic hat. It should become one of the major campaign issues. I think the GOP should use it for the midterm ’06 elections too.


Why must you project discrimination on to everything you see? Are you denying that when beauty and intellect find their way into the same person that it’s more attractive than simply having one or the other? I don’t see anything in Peter’s statement that suggests that he thinks attractive women are nothing more than things to be looked at. Way to make controversy exist where none needed to.

Dominick- Perhaps you are right, and Peter needs no defending at all, in which case you overreact. Or, perhaps Peter (and Parker and others) have done the same thing to Hillary: projecting a racial message where none existed. In both cases, I would disagree. I bet Hillary would love to have that one back. I also think that Peter displayed a bias, otherwise the combination of brains and beauty would not have been noteworthy. I also doubt that he comments on the beauty of his male colleagues in the same breath that he comments on their verbal skills.

What if I said, "Hey! A Republican with morals! How about that?"

or... "I like Gerald Ford. A Republican who tells the truth."

Would you be so quick to defend such utterances?

I like this game!

"A Democrat with brains! Cool!"

"Oh, look, a liberal with a sense of humor! Don’t see many of those!"

They don’t call the left the Perpetually Indignant for nothing.


Your comments about Republicans come after a long history of comments on this site attacking Republicans. Peter has no such history on here to suggest that he thinks that the average women is too stupid to write well. Thus, while many of us would be offended by your hypothetical statements, there is no corresponding reason to be offended by Peter’s remark.

And I also doubt he comments on the looks of his male colleagues. Most men refrain from such comments about other men, in my experience. Why does that even matter?

I still think it’s absurd that you don’t think that the combination of brains and beauty is at all noteworthy. It’s not that the two things are mutually exclusive by any means, but as I said, I think most men are quite pleased to find it housed within the same woman. Further, I think it’s a rare woman who is offended by a man observing both within her.

But I suppose you need something to complain about, no?

Are you ever gonna drop the naive-freshman Ayn Rand-dedication name??

" Peter has no such history on here to suggest that he thinks that the average women is too stupid to write well."

Perhaps the writing of such a history has suffered due to a lack of critical voices that refuse to be silenced. Let the data collection begin!

Is there some reason that you have chosen the role of Peter’s defender?

Because your comment was silly.

Is there some reason you have chosen the role of Peter’s attacker?

You are boring me.

You are boring me as well. You have utterly failed to defend yourself. You should at least have the decency to admit that your comment was out of line and presumptuous. But I doubt you will.

DR - I don’t need to defend myself. I pointed out a bias that Peter revealed. You apparently share that bias: Smart women are rarely pretty, pretty women are rarely smart, and beauty is an appropriate criterion with which to judge professional female peers, but not male peers.

Your job, apparently, is to defend Peter, which you have done by voicing your agreement with him. There is nothing more that I need to do, here.

You are like talking to a wall.

No one has said that "smart women are rarely pretty, pretty women are rarely smart" except you. I challenge you to find anything in any of my statements on this issue that even hint at that sentiment. Similarly, no one but you has said that "beauty is an appropriate criterion with which to judge professional female peers." Peter’s statement did not say that she was a better writer because he thinks she is pretty. He merely said that he "likes" her because she is pretty and can write. What would be the difference if he said that he liked a writer because she was funny and was Hungarian? Those would be equally superificial reasons for expressing "like", but somehow I doubt you would have been offended. You seem to think that saying a pretty woman is pretty is offensive to that woman or to women generally. I rather doubt that the average woman shares that offense.

Where is the bias here? Only in your own mind.

DR- This really should not be so difficult. You have already agreed that it would be offensive if I said, "Wow! A Republican with morals!" That would be offensive precisely for the same reason that Peter’s phrase is offensive. They are semantically equivalent. The implication is that a Republican with morals is noteworthy because (a) Most Repubs don’t have morals and/or (b) most moral people are not Republican. Also implied is that the issue of morals arises when we speak of Republicans, and vice versa.

Okay, now read out loud, and follow with your finger.....

To say, "Wow! A pretty woman who writes!" is offensive because it implies that (a) most pretty women do not write, and/or (b) most writers are not pretty women. Also implied is that the issue of beauty and/or brains arises when we speak of women.

Your claim of ignorant naif is just too precious. It reminds me of those who claim that they are only being complementary when they speak of Blacks as "natural athletes," or Jews as "good with money." If you don’t get it by now, then I shall assume that we are simply speaking different languages. Maybe some other readers can help me out here; draw a picture for you, or something. I would also remind you that you apparently think that Peter’s defense is more important than Peter thinks it is. He, apparently, is fine with his expression of bias. Please, if you reply, come up with something new?

There is nothing wrong with calling a woman pretty, especially by her leave, which I had.

You also seem to have found it remarkable that she could also write!

I think Fung made his points quite well on this "A pretty woman who writes!" comment. I agree with him entirely. I won’t say I’m "offended" by Mr. Schramm’s comment, as I have no personal investment in his viewpoints on anything. It only reveals his ignorant prejudices and absurdly backward and sexist approach to women. He’s not alone in that, surely. If comment 18 was really from the same Peter Schramm, that’s a very, very weak defense.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2006/01/hillary-1.php on line 921

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2006/01/hillary-1.php on line 921