Gee, Would It Really Have Been So Hard For Democrats And The News Media To Just To Admit That Rep. Richmond’s ‘The President’s Female Counselor Looks Like She’s Used To Giving Blow-jobs’ Joke Was Wrong, Period? Apparently So. Wow.

Great apology there, Cedric. Ugh.

Why do I think this story is a big deal? I think it’s a big deal because it exposes–

…the white-hot hatred of Republicans by so much of the Left, on the level we have seen with Sarah Palin being attacked for running for office while being a mother, and Martin Bashir on MSNBC wishing that someone would defecate in her mouth, to the extent that they are literally willing to abandon and reject their own alleged core principles…

…calling into question whether they even are core principles, rather than calculated pandering to receptive groups, and thus..

…raising the specter of epic hypocrisy, which is a lack of integrity and honesty.

Then there is this: I have a brilliant younger sister. She is a lawyer, a litigator, a singer, and actress, the hardest working person I know, and someone who has always been able to match or surpass me in every field. Yet I have watched as her achievements have occurred in the teeth of a stiff wind of sexist bias, often making her unhappy, angry, resentful and stressed when she deserved so much better. Growing up with her, it never occurred to me that this kind of prejudice existed until I was the captain of the high school chess team, and saw how the other teams’ players—all male: our team had the only female players (3) in the Greater Boston chess league— were openly contemptuous that a “girl” would presume to challenge them. It was great: my sister slaughtered them. She is a merciless chess player, a killer, and didn’t merely beat her male opponents but humiliated them. She had the best record on the team. Yes, gender bias is personal with me. I hate it.

To briefly recap: Cedric Richmond, an African American  Democratic Congressman, leeringly implied, as a speaker at an event, that KellyAnne Conway’s posture in a photo taken in the Oval Office, “really looked kind of familiar in that position there. Don’t answer — and I don’t want you to refer back to the 1990s.” It was a reference to fellatio, and the old, old slur against successful women that they “suck their way to the top.” This was obvious and blatant, and yet when conservatives and Republicans–and only conservatives and Republicans—protested, Richmond, incredibly, denied that his comments had any offensive content or intent. He is a liar.

Then, in the wake of  stunning silence of any leader of the Democratic Party, major feminist, major news organizations and liberal pundits, CNN’s Jake Tapper pressed Rep. Richmond’s leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, to condemn his remarks. She refused, and also lied. One prominent Democrat without portfolio or post, Chelsea Clinton, did condemn that “joke,” which hardly salvages the party’s integrity and honor. Her mother? Madeleine Albright? Elizabeth Warren? Donna Brazile? Michelle Obama? Senator Gillibrand? Maureen Dowd? Rachel Maddow? Anyone? Hello? Bueller?

Crickets. Yet it was undeniable, as one pundit noted, that a Republican who made such a comment about Valerie Jarret would have been “run out of town.” Wrote The Federalist’s Bethany Mandel yesterday,

This “on her knees” comment from a sitting Democratic lawmaker was largely ignored by the liberal media and those who consume it. This comment is just one of many recent incidents of sexism aimed in Conway’s direction, justified because she’s a traitor to her gender, as many feminists have claimed; a female Uncle Tom. Instead of being applauded for her groundbreaking work as a campaign manager on the biggest upset political campaign in American history, Conway is fodder for attacks on her looks and sexuality, often at the hands of individuals who claim to be feminists.Our president may have a history of misogyny, but it’s becoming increasingly clear many of those in the resistance against him are merely fair-weather feminists: happy to wage or at best ignore attacks on women based on their sex because they think it’s fair to attack the president at any cost.

Bingo.

Now comes the next chapter, as those who have exposed their deep hate and corrupting hypocrisy try to worm their way back into the public trust.

First, Richmond issued this eyeball-ejectingly awful apology over the weekend:

“After a discussion with people I know and trust, I understand the way my remarks have been received by many. I have consistently been a champion for women and women’s issues, and because of that the last thing I would want to ever do is utter words that would hurt or demean them. I apologize to Kellyanne Conway and everyone who has found my comments to be offensive.”

Loose Translation:

‘Some party leaders told me that this wouldn’t go away until I pretended to be sorry, so here I go.  I stand by my lie that I didn’t mean to say what I obviously said, but I now understand how some people actually knew exactly what I meant and weren’t amused, even though it was a Republican woman who works for that Hell Spawn,and  believe that an elected official in a party that claims to be a champion of women’s rights shouldn’t say things like that in public—private is OK, right guys? I mean, as long as it isn’t being recorded. Go figure.  I have consistently said that I support women, though I am as misogynist as the next red-blooded male when some bitch pisses me off, like Kellyanne. The last thing I would want to ever do is utter words that would hurt or demean them, except when it’s a Republican woman and will get a big laugh, in which case it’s the first thing.  I apologize to that  woman, Kellyanne Conway for saying what I really think of her, and everyone who has found my comments to be offensive. Those who didn’t, thanks. You get where I’m coming from.’

The apology includes features of both a #9 and a #10 apology on the Ethics Alarms Apology scale:

9. Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not (“if my words offended, I am sorry”). Another variation: apologizing for a tangential matter other than the act or words that warranted an apology.

10. An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.

In sum, miserable and despicable. Be proud, Democrats!

Next, the New York Times, which tried to duck reporting on the episode entirely for days—It’s not NICE if you are a party organs to point up both Democratic hypocrisy regarding women and the misdeed of a black Democrat— revealed their spin. The treatment of Conway shows how Hillary Clinton’s defeat was partially fueled by gender bias. Brilliant! Instead of having to dwell on Democratic hypocrisy and misogyny, or sharply criticize Richmond, make the story about another alibi for Hillary:

Mrs. Clinton “repeats her tacky outfits,” one Twitter critic sniped. The Inauguration Day outfit of Ms. Conway, a counselor to President Trump, looked like “a night terror of an android majorette.”Mrs. Clinton’s hair has drawn relentless derision; one Twitter user recently asked: “Why does Kellyanne Conway always look like she’s still drunk & wearing make up from last night’s bender?”…The two women are at opposite ideological poles, but they stir up the same lingering cultural discomfort with ambitious, assertive women.

“These sexist memes are not the purview of one party,” said Karen Finney, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign. “We fear strong women and women with power. These attacks are meant to delegitimize that power.”

“The same?” Wait—where’s the part about that Republican Congressman who implied that Hillary gave blow-jobs in the Oval Office? Where was the equivalent fury unleashed on Rep. Richmond, compared to that heaped on Trump for a private conversation having nothing to do with any powerful woman? Did I miss Karen Finney, one of Hillary’s most prolific paid liars during the campaign, specifically calling out Richmond?

This episode is both disgusting and damning for Democrats and progressives. All they had to do is say, “This was wrong, and we are sorry,” and they couldn’t do it.

Think about that.

 

49 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Leadership

49 responses to “Gee, Would It Really Have Been So Hard For Democrats And The News Media To Just To Admit That Rep. Richmond’s ‘The President’s Female Counselor Looks Like She’s Used To Giving Blow-jobs’ Joke Was Wrong, Period? Apparently So. Wow.

  1. “Would It Really Have Been So Hard For Democrats And The News Media To Just To Admit That Rep. Richmond’s ‘The President’s Female Counselor looks like She’s Used To Giving Blow-jobs’ Joke Was Wrong, Period?”

    Tell them what you’re going to tell them; tell them; thentell them what you told them.

    In this block of instruction we will cover some terms that might help others understand what’s happening with the political left.

    Animal House School of Thought

    Bias Makes You Stupid

    Ethical Flush

    Liberal Critical Thinking

    Liberal Hive Minds

    Liberal Magical Thinking

    Political Attack Dog

    Political Hack

    Political Hack Pack

    Political Tool

    Progressive Magical Thinking

    Salem Witch Trial School of Thought

    The Ends Justify The Means

    Traumatic Political Stress Disorder

    In this block of instruction we covered some terms that might help others understand what’s happening with the political left.

    The test will be the second Tuesday of next week.

    Thank you for participating in this block of instruction.

    🙂

    • Hey! Knock it off! How the hell are the rest of us supposed to get a Comment of the Day when you’re screwing up the curve!

    • I really thought the purpose of Urban Dictionary was to submit definitions for naturally developing slang terms, not a place to push terms one hopes enters the cultural lexicon…

      • texagg04 wrote, “I really thought the purpose of Urban Dictionary was to submit definitions for naturally developing slang terms, not a place to push terms one hopes enters the cultural lexicon…”

        Wouldn’t knowing if these are “naturally developing slang terms” or not depend on the circle(s) of people you communicate with? I’ve heard some of these things for many, many years – some probably before I was born, some have been developing over the last 5-10 years, and some over the last year or two. The point is that “naturally developing slang terms” is very relative.

        • Zanshin

          ” I’ve heard some of these things for many, many years – some probably before I was born”

          Wow! That’s amazing

          • Zanshin wrote, “Wow! That’s amazing”

            Yeah, I caught that after I submitted it too. It should have read “I’ve heard some of these things for many, many years – some were probably developing before I was born”

            🙂

      • Tex,
        Haven’t we had this discussion before?

        • I donno.

          Maybe, I guess I’m not fully convinced of the substantive similarity between some of your proposed terms and what would best be termed slang from the Urban Dictionary.

          I mean, it makes sense for something like “bling” or “phat” to show up in the UD, whereas “Political Hack” doesn’t strike me as an equitable level of slang, but rather a traditionally definable term arising in heated discourse.

          Or perhaps another difference: One can find such a terms like “blumpkin” or “mud duck” which require elucidation for the less “street educated”, whereas terms like “traumatic political stress disorder” sound clinical and almost sociological and nothing like the slang that non-slangy people need help understanding.

          There’s things like “angry pirate” or “rusty trombone” which, though appear to be English have a slang definition which might make your average sailor blush, but along side those phrases, you insert “ends justifies the means”, an ethics term that aids in understanding one method of ethics.

          It just feels like maybe you are trying to make a splash where a splash isn’t to be made…I mean “Bias Makes You Stupid” isn’t even a slang term is it?

          • Maybe you thinking that Urban Dictionary is only about “slang” doesn’t jive with what others think Urban Dictionary is about.

            Personally I think the Urban Dictionary idea is absolutely genius; it fits a niche of giving people a method of defining terms, in plain language, which have lacked definitions in other places and it give a place to show shifting meanings over time. Some of the definitions will go the way of the Dodo but I think that some of the more “sensible” and better written definitions in Urban Dictionary could become more formal definitions in other places over time.

            I just did a Google search for “bias makes you stupid” and the only place that had any kind of definition was Urban Dictionary; sure the phrase may be self evident to most people but not everyone fits so nicely in that “most people” category.

            It’s a useful tool, but as some have stated in the past, it can be over used and glaze over the eyes of readers. My usage above was truly meant to be more on the “humorous” side, as the overall presentation implies.

            Dang, how did we get on the subject of Urban Dictionary anyway? 😉 😉 😉

            • Urban Dictionary self identifies as slang oriented.

              And “bias makes you stupid” isn’t a term. It’s an assertion. Terms even multiple word terms can have definitions. But assertions require explanation. And it isn’t even a slang assertion.

              Plus, in not sure the explanation give of “bias makes you stupid” is sufficient as the submitted explanation is “when your bias causes you do and say things that are stupid.”

              That seems like someone asking for a definition of the term “dog” and answering “it’s an animal that is a dog”

              • texagg04 wrote, “Urban Dictionary self identifies as slang oriented.”

                Really?

                I can’t find anything on Urban Dictionary’s website where they self identify that way and there is nothing in their Terms of Service or anything about slang on their website.

                Please provide a reliable source of information that supports that claim.

  2. Spartan

    I am going to criticize Ms. Conway for a minute, and I hope you all bear with me.

    I am a career woman and, in fact, am the breadwinner for my family. Jack’s sister and I probably could exchange endless stories about the challenges of being a successful white collar female. I accept this as a fact in my life and recognize that I am held to a different standard without being bitter or loud about it. I did not wear red and stay home today despite the protest. In fact, I was supposed to be out of the office for meetings all day but deliberately came into the office so there would not be a presumption that I was taking part. I do not wear low cut dresses or stiletto heels. I do not sleep around the office — and never have.

    This background is leading up to a larger point, which is this: I have to hold myself out as a professional at all times and not give others the opportunity to mock me for my gender and/or sexualize me in the work place. I am not only doing this for myself, but I do it for other women who are trying to climb the corporate ladder. This horrible joke by Congressman Richmond (and he should be loudly condemned for it) occurred because of that crazy way Conway was sitting in a dress. As professional women, we can’t ever give men that kind of ammunition. If I walked into any professional meeting and saw a subordinate sitting like that, I would correct her on the spot. If the meeting was with anybody important, forget about the President, she would be fired.

    So yes, Congressman Richmond will never get my vote for this comment alone — it was one of signature significance. But Ms. Conway? Stop it. I am still reeling from your outfit on election night — it looks like one of my clubbing outfits from my twenties. You don’t have to go buy dowdy pant suits, but please dress and act like a professional. You have an amazing and powerful position in the White House — please respect the responsibility that comes with that job. I was taught to cross my legs in a dress by the age of 8 — as my mother used to say, “Hit the cymbals!”

    • In my humble opinion, that’s worthy of the coveted, Comment of the Day!

    • Comment of the Day, S–and you and I both know the obvious objection…which makes it a better comment. Something to argue about. For the record, I think the observation is valid—but it will be called blaming the victim…which, in part, it is.

      • Spartan

        I thought about that — but there isn’t a crime here, so she is not a victim. But, if you did want to compare this to rape (which I thought about before drafting my comment), the response is easy. Yes, we still put men in prison for raping women who dress provocatively — as we should — but good parents still teach their daughters about the dangers of dressing inappropriately.

        • Other Bill

          Good for you, Sparty.

          Sure women have to be careful and are held to a higher standard, but maybe her sitting like that on the couch was kind of refreshing. How many pictures are there of LBJ or JFK sitting in the Oval office with their feet up on the desk puffing on a cigar and having a scotch? I suspect there are many. In a perfect world, which this is not, I think her sitting like that would be considered kind of endearing. I bet she and the staff spend a heck of a lot of time in there. Frankly, I wonder whether the photographer is a holdover from the Obama administration. Wouldn’t an official photographer be expected to crop out all sorts of things when photographing an official event? I think she deserves being given a little more slack.

          • Other Bill

            Plus, I think your condemnation of her is close to the old phenomenon, real or imagined, from the ’80s where women were perceived to be the harshest critics of other successful women. I think you’re in territory where even angels fear to tread. Tough to pull off.

            • Other Bill

              Again, I think you’re using your old sucker punch technique. Maybe you should try an exercise. Just post the following comment: “Yes, Congressman Richmond will never get my vote for this comment alone — it was one of signature significance.” Then press enter and walk away and do all the important things you have to do in a day. Try it. You might like it.

              • Spartan

                I think what you are trying to get me to do is blind acceptance or denial — depending on the topic at hand. Unfortunately, ethics issues are rarely that easy.

                • Other Bill

                  No. I think your irrepressibly argumentative nature gets in the way and has the unfortunate effect of undermining your credibility.

                  • Spartan

                    I’m not being argumentative. The ethics call of condemning Richmond is easy. The question of whether women should hold themselves to a different standard in the workplace is a more interesting and challenging discussion.

            • Spartan

              I know women like that and I have worked for them. They made it hard on us because it had been even harder for them. That’s not what I am doing. As I said above, a woman learning how to sit correctly in a skirt is a skill learned early in childhood. If you like to sit like Sharon Stone, don’t wear a dress. If you can sit with your legs crossed, wear whatever you want. If you’re somewhere in-between well … perhaps at least keeping your feet on the floor is a good first step.

              As for fashion choices, remember the uproar over Michelle Obama’s sleeveless dresses? I rarely wear them myself as I am always freezing in the office, but it was her signature look. But some Conservatives went nuts over this fashion choice. Now, that is crossing the line.

              As you said, these are challenging waters to tread, but I think my voice is a reasonable one.

          • Greg

            When JFK and LBJ put their feet on the desk, you couldn’t see up their dress.

            • Greg, now I need mental bleach for the picture you just put in my mind: LBJ (in a kilt, close to a skirt) with his feet on the desk…

              • Spartan

                But you could with Hoover! 🙂

              • Kilts aren’t “close” to skirts. They are skirts. Just because they have an ethnic name doesn’t make them any less than what they are nor does it make them cool.

                Scottish men wear skirts.

                That’s right. I said it.

                Now tell me how I shouldn’t tell a Scotsman to his face.

                • I won’t say you should not tell a Scot his kilt is a skirt: I just wanna know when and where so I can bring popcorn and a lawn chair.

                  • If you enjoying seeing man in a skirt getting his face pounded then sure. You see, despite what some think, the wearing of a kilt doesn’t make me any less bigger than slightly above average stature and build….

                    So there’s that.

                    Also, the only actual bekilted Scotsmen I’ve met were falling over drunk and harassing Italian women. So coordination is probbaly already off.

                    I’ll caveat- no I won’t say it to guy’s I evaluate are already looking for a fight anyway and are intentionally stacked for that purpose for whom the wearing of a man-skirt is really just an invitation to the fight they are looking for.

                    • Of course, why anyone would want to come to blows over an honest discussion of the truth approached from an angle of humility and good faith is beyond me.

                • Dwayne N. Zechman

                  Well, tell no TRUE Scotsman to his face.

                  –Dwayne

            • Other Bill

              Hah. What about the stir about guys who spread their legs when they sit. They’re wearing pants, for God’s sake. I can’t see up Ms. Conway’s dress. Can you? I thought it was more about having her shoes on the upholstery, actually. Guess I don’t have a dirty enough mind.

              So what’s the big deal about see up women’s dresses? Didn’t we have a million women wearing vaginas on their heads to great adulation from the left? Doesn’t that iconic feminist Beyonce make a living thrusting her crotch at her audience? She’s powerful. Kelly Ann Conway is a slut. Go figure.

              • Spartan

                I’m really having trouble following this. One, I can’t tell if she’s wearing shoes or not. Indeed, she might be barefoot — otherwise that position would hurt with shoes. Two, her legs are apart and are under her — it may or not be slutty, but it is not how anyone sits in a dress.

                Point me to wear I applaud women wearing vaginas on their heads? Never mind, don’t bother — I never did. And, Ms. Conway is not a performer — comparing her to Beyonce, Madonna, or any other singer is ridiculous. I really hope that you’re not arguing that the same standards of dress apply to protest marches, concert performers, and meetings in the Oval Office.

                Sheesh. Who’s argumentative now?

                Actually Jack, did you know that Kellyanne Conway was in the GW version of the GG&SS society? My husband performed in Law Revue with her.

        • Wayne

          For God sakes! She wasn’t going to get raped: It was election night. Anyway, If you want to get all riled up about something, think of some of the outfits some of the women wore at the Academy Awards.

        • Spartan wrote, “I thought about that — but there isn’t a crime here, so she is not a victim.”

          There doesn’t have to be an actual “crime” for there to be a victim. If you were to look at the so-called joke, wasn’t that kind of an attack on the person thus creating a “victim”?

          Heck there are people out there that saw the phrase “TRUMP 2016” and claimed they were victims of hate speech, so it’s all on how one defines victim.

          • Spartan

            Yes, but those would be stupid people.

            • Spartan wrote, “Yes, but those would be stupid people.”

              If you’re only talking about the snowflakes that took “TRUMP 2016” as hate speech I agree; however, think out of that box, there are many, many others out there that are not necessarily “stupid” that feel victimized by simple words. It’s a small point, but a valid point.

        • Chris

          Can’t someone can be called a “victim” of sexist treatment without a crime having occurred?

          I agree that her sitting like that rubbed me the wrong way, though I also think it was made into a way bigger deal than it should have been.

          And of course, more Democrats should have publicly criticized Richmond’s behavior. Some did–and the liberal media definitely did–but not enough.

    • Wasn’t Ms. Conway attempting to take a picture? I thought that was the whole reason she was in that situation.

  3. Wayne

    Maybe Chelsea is starting to wake up and realize that her party is full of creeps, jerks, and hypocrites. One can only hope. I feel sorry for people who believe Richmond’s ‘apology’ is sincere.

  4. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    And so your brilliant sister buys into this fascist lie? Her education,intelligence and experience is suddenly negated by the “love Hillary/hate Trump” ideology? This is the really terrifying movement going on: How an IQ 140 can suddenly become an IQ 80 solely because of effective agiit/prop. Stalin would be so proud.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s