“My experience here has given me a front-row seat to how deeply and unconsciously, as well as consciously, so many people in this country hate women…”
—The always entertaining AOC in a fawning puff-piece in GQ, which never felt that putting Mrs. Trump on its cover was appropriate, but now features the supposed working class heroine in a series of glamor shots in the current issue.
So let’s see: in the past seven days, the President has called half the public a “clear and present danger”s” to democracy and “semi-fascists,” and one of his party’s shining stars called a different half “misogynists.”
Did you know that Republicans are hateful and divisive?
AOC goes on to say,
And they hate women of color. People ask me questions about the future. And realistically, I can’t even tell you if I’m going to be alive in September. And that weighs very heavily on me. And it’s not just the right wing. Misogyny transcends political ideology: left, right, center.
Racist, bigoted and sexist—that’s AOC’s view of the United States of America. This is why, she tells GQ, she will probably never be President: “I admit to sometimes believing that I live in a country that would never let that happen.”
Right. That’s why she will never be President.
Conservative pundit Tom Knighton writes on substack,
The truth is, AOC is never going to be president not because of her sex or her ethnicity, but because she’s a self-avowed socialist who spouts off saying stupid stuff so often it’s an entire category of meme.
I would caution Tom that many of us once thought Joe Biden would never be President because he spent a whole career saying stupid things, and then after dementia struck, he was elected anyway. I would also remind him that in one recent poll, socialist and Stalin admirer Bernie Sanders led all Democrats as the favored candidate for President in 2024. Do I have to quote old H.L again? It’s a bit harsh, but still…
No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.
Knighton also opines,
But where AOC is wrong is the idea that the misogyny she speaks of is so pervasive that we’ll never elect a woman to the Oval Office. It’s really just a matter of time as to when that will happen. It’s not an if and we all know it.The thing is, we’ll need a female candidate coming at the right time and in the right manner.
As Knighton points out, it wasn’t misogyny but a rare anomaly in our election system that stopped Hillary from being elected President, as bad a candidate as she was. Of course a woman will be President eventually, but to “right time and in the right manner” he should have added “a competent and qualified female candidate.” Right now there aren’t any, and there haven’t been many—maybe none—so far in US political history. The problem is that civilization’s leadership model relies on male proclivities, character traits and natural instincts. There is no female leadership template; women haven’t had enough opportunity to create one. The most successful female leaders in world history have succeeded by leading like men: Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir. Consider the horrible array of female governors and big city mayors currently running amuck. Or, of course, Kamala Harris.
Once again I will mention the recent discussion with my very astute but unfortunately Democrat-favoring, MSNBC-watching sister, who challenged me to name a current female politician I would support for President. It was a gotcha!, you see, designed to show that I was biased. I answered immediately, “None! What woman would you want to see as President?” And she answered, in essence, “Uh, huminahuminahumina…” She couldn’t think of one.
And she sure wasn’t going to pick AOC…
Ethics Alarms 
Maybe, just maybe, AOC shows herself to be the unthinking, moronic, but always beautifully dressed though ideologically challenged idiot that she is.
I would literally vote for my CAT before I cast a ballot for AOC. In fact, I have things in the back of my fridge that would get my vote before her. It is a new definition of misogyny for me, a woman, to prefer my pet to AOC when Kira would win either intelligence or common sense tests hands down in a contest with AOC even without opposable thumbs or the ability to communicate in something other than meows.
I tend not to have much of a positive opinion on dog’s intelligences, but I’d probably put money on a Labrador to be a better choice for President than this idiot. Who does she think she’s convincing? She’s going to be killed? That’ll only be likely if she and her party keep pushing the civil war that they so desperately seem to want. If they do, we all will have a high chance of death especially since we don’t have a nice pretty division like North vs South.
Remy does NOT approve and takes great offense!
http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/cd73f0036a150e7cb0ea6a0443a6dcdb
jvb
The Left’s insistence that their every failure is due to racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, greed, or some other character flaw on the part of others reminds me of Oliver Cromwell’s letter to the Church of Scotland:
For me, it is a question of when, not if, a woman is elected President. Geraldine Ferraro did a good job during her campaign and would have had a chance at VP if Mondale hadn’t been such a lousy candidate, getting slaughtered 8 ways to Tuesday by Reagan.
I see no reason why not, in terms of sex/gender issues. I have been impressed by Kristi Noem from South Dakota and, to some extent, Tusli Gabbard (though her cultishy religious affiliation is probably a nail in her presidential bid). Hillary Clinton is just too awful on so many levels to think about and many of the current big city mayors are simply too stupid for consideration – hell, even Stacey Abrams (the past, future, and forever Georgia Governor and Federal President) has been rejected by her community’s male contingencies.
Sandy Cortez, the upper middle class working-class-heroine Bronx Borough child who graduated from the elite Boston University, seemingly overestimates her importance and does not comprehend why people dislike her. It has nothing to do with gender – in fact, she is attractive and is very photogenic, and she is quick on her feet – but, usually, she has just said, or is about to say, something mindnumbingly stupid.* She killed off the Amazon deal in her district because she completely misunderstood the tax incentives granted by the city and the state to encourage business development. Additionally, she is a committed socialist.communist.central statist who proposes economy and job and society wrecking policies she has no intention of ever imposing on herself. But, hey, GQ, that bastion of wokeness, did a fawning piece on her so she can be president now, assuming she is at least 35 years old and still sentient.
jvb
Ed. Note*: Why would she state that she may not even be alive in September? What does that even mean? Are armed insurrectionists storming her Congressional offices again (hoping she is in them this time)? I guess in one sense it is true that we never know what the future brings – we could be struck by a bus this afternoon or get electrocuted trying to change the wall plug or suffer a massive heart attack after reviewing our nonexistent bank balances. Or, we might make it out of September and suffer the fate of space debris landing directly on our crania, thereby snuffing our whatever life forces September did not kill off. Who knows? There is that joke: “If you wanna make God laugh, tell him your plans!”?
Didn’t she claim to have almost been killed on January 6, 2021, despite not being in the Capitol building?
Her hyperbole knows no bounds. If she were Donald Trump, she’d be called a liar.
Yes, she was nowhere near her office of the Capitol Building at the time. I think she was at a Starbucks looking over her Tesla brochure, while enjoying a half-caf doube decaf soy latte with a spritz of lime when the Insurrection happened. In her defense, she could have been in her office and she could have been killed. KILLED, I tell you!
jvb
Tulsi has no leadership or executive experience that I can find.
No, but she has military experience in the Middle East. She seems rational and is willing to go toe to toe with her detractors.
jvb
I know she’s had some missteps, and is currently fighting some accusations that she has engaged in some unethical behavior (though maybe it is all just a political hit from an opponent who had been impeached and removed from office), but I would probably be willing to vote for Kristi Noem for President.
And JVB beat me to the punch, even including a nod to Tulsi Gabbard that I almost included…
Condoleezza Rice?
She is brilliant but I would question her executive branch experience, though I would lean heavily in her favor. Running a university is a different animal all together but her tenure as Secretary of State was impressive. The Republicans would cause the Democrats sever agida if she were the candidate. Imagine that!
jvb
Not enough that it would prevent the Democrats from displaying their double standards for all to see by presenting her as an Uncle Tom (I’m sorry, is there a female equivalent to that?) and traitor to her race.
They are shameless. They’d probably stand up there and tell the whole country that Condy ain’t black.
I have seen no indication of leadership ability from Rice, nor, perhaps equally significant, any indication that she seeks leadership. A pure academic by nature.
I always figured that Rice was too smart to want to become President.
-Jut
“Right now there aren’t any [competent and qualified females], and there haven’t been many—maybe none—so far in US political history.”
That is a ridiculous assertion, tinged with misogyny.
I could add the names of a few women who are competent and qualified to those already mentioned, but my expectation is that they would likewise be summarily dismissed, given the absoluteness of the statement that there are none. Would there be flaws or uncertainties upon which to base those dismissals? Certainly. Same as for men.
Besides, the year 2024 would be a much better year in which to discuss the next presidential election.
Why don’t you go ahead and list who all you think are qualified? Just because someone likely won’t agree doesn’t mean it can’t be discussed. And just because Jack might disagree, doesn’t mean every reader will. It might be the some reader lurking in the shadows sees your analysis, likes the candidate you propose, starts donating and organizing, gets a number of people to volunteer their time and effort, with the effects rippling out from there.
Well, you’ve got some good points there, Ryan, but I really don’t care to get into a discussion this far ahead of the presidential election. I’ve got enough to think about with the Florida candidates for office this year.
Still, in addition to Gabbard, Rice, and Noem …
Nikki Haley
Amy Klobuchar
Liz Cheney
Joni Ernst
Gretchen Whitmer
Michelle Lujan Grisham
Kate Brown
Sarah B’s cat (maybe)
and others, worth considering, and depending on the opponent.
I could get behind Noem and Ernst (though I think traditionally, Senators have struggled to make the leap to the Oval Office). I might also mention Iowa’s current Governor, Kim Reynolds.
Liz Cheney?!? Really?
Cheney shot herself in the foot. She is toast.
jvb
I have met Sarah B’s Cat. Sarah B’s Cat is magnificent and would make a fine Commander in Chief.
jvb
All cats are murderous psychopaths and should be kept as far from the halls of power as possible. I have four cats in my life currently, and I barely trust them to be on the property unsupervised. I remain constantly vigilant against the treachery that lurks in their evil, adorable hearts. Giving the ability to initiate a nuclear strike to a feline is the height of insanity.
Mine was an accurate assessment. Stating fact doesn’t suggest misogyny. Literally none of the women you mention would be considered Presidential timber based on their words, conduct, legitimate experience and substance unless they were women, which was essentially Clinton’s (offensive) argument: vote for a woman, because she isn’t a man. Your list proves it (my sister at least had the sense to say “I’m not good with names.)
Nikki Haley: I have liked Haley in teh past, but her flip-flopping around the January 6 riot was disqualifying. As soon as it was clear everyone wasn’t going to turn on Trump, she started trying to “walk back” her criticism which was originally unequivocal.
Amy Klobuchar: She’s weak, she’s dishonest, she panders, she’s ridiculous. Read her EA dossier. Yes, she actually called the Jan. 6 riot a “coup attempt.” Come on…
Liz Cheney: That you would even include her shows desperation. She has no executive experience, and has thoroughly disgraced herself.
Joni Ernst: No high level executive experience whatsoever. She’s conservative. So was Rush Limbaugh. Senators make lousy Presidents: I consider all of them unqualified unless they have actually run an organization or a major city, or a state. Generals count. She wasn’t a general.
Gretchen Whitmer If her despicable handling of the pandemic in Michigan didn’t convince you she was dangerous, I don’t know what to say. I once made the mistake of citing her as a qualified woman for the VP slot, meaning she was sort of qualified as a POTUS. Then came Wuhan. I reject her not because she female, but because she proved she can’t be trusted with power.
Michelle Lujan Grisham: I know little about her one way or the other, but enough. I do know New Mexico is not exactly a bell-weather state. I do know she was involved in a sexual assualty incident that, if she were male, would have ended he political career. I do know she was caught using public money to buy her groceries, which is a bad sign. Personally, I would never vote for someone who supports pointless climate change laws, and gun control laws using the deceitful words, “Assault weapon,” or who was on Biden’s Transition Team, meaning that she endorses choosing crucial cabinet positions and the VP based on group membership rather than ability and merit. I guess she’s a more qualified progressive than Ernst is a qualified conservative, but that doesn’t make her a legitimate Presidential contender.
Kate Brown: From a post: “Kate Brown, governor of one of the bluest states in the nation, called on citizens to inform on their neighbors who defied the state’s draconian pandemic restrictions….endorsing one of the signature tactics of autocratic regimes.” From another: “Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 744 into law, so for the next five years, an Oregon high school diploma will not guarantee that the student whose name is on it can read, write or do math at a high school level.” Or this. Then there was her full throated endorsement tweet of the smear on Justic Kavanaugh:”I’ve already said that Brett Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because he will be a threat to women’s health care. Sexual assault allegations are always serious. I urge the Senate to respect the rights of the survivor as they investigate this allegation and reject Kavanaugh. I stand with Dr Christine Blasey Ford. Today we walked out in solidarity with victims of sexual assault everywhere. #BelieveSurvivors #StopKavanaugh”
Sarah B’s cat: I don’t know enough to make a call.
Your list proved my point superbly. You dug (too) deep, and this was the best you could find.
“Senators make lousy Senators”
I’m sure you meant that senators make lousy presidents (current events strongly bolster that claim), but even as written, it seems to be true. Looking at the current crop of 100 people with that title, at least 90 of them (and I’m being generous, as I can’t actually think of five off the top of my head that would evade the label “lousy”) are pretty bad at the job. So indeed, senators do make lousy senators.
Ugh. Senators USUALLY make lousy Senators, but yes, I meant Presidents, and I fixed it.
In the paramount interest of DIE, there should be an equal number of female candidates as male.
Same goes for race and sexual orientation.
The election is in 2024 after all and it is about time the USA *woke* up and aligned with the times!
So I could see Noem, Haley, Gabbard. Rice many years ago declined the chance to be a politician, but I think she’s probably a good fit running the Hoover Institution. Haven’t seen enough of Ernst to have much of an opinion, but I’m open minded.
Klobuchar wouldn’t be as bad as Biden, but that’s a damn low standard. Whitmer, on the other hand, might be as bad.
Perhaps Sarah B’s cat might be persuaded to run up to NYC and run for Congress. I know of a district that’s not being well represented there (well, again, a damn low standard).
Not misogynistic, Here’s Johnny.
Just ask Jack how many men are competent and qualified to be President and he will probably have a VERY short list.
Take a step back and think about it yourself.
What men have you liked in the past few cycles?
Most are so flawed. Their primary overriding qualification is that they throw their hat into the ring DESPITE their flaws.
Beyond that, look to executive experience (an abbreviated list): Governors (Clinton, Reagan, Bush, etc.); Military (Washington, Jackson, Grant); Business (Trump); Academia (Wilson). Biden and Obama are likely unique as Senators (except Biden as a Vice-President (Johnson and Johnson and Truman)). How many candidates fit that bill?
I admit: I liked Rubio, until the needle on his record started skipping in the 2016 campaign.
The men don’t make a good showing either. It is just that more of them show up.
-Jut
I’m not saying that anyone here is misogynistic, just that the statement itself has a tinge of misogyny. Competent and (as used here) qualified are both arbitrary and undefined. That makes it easy to say there are no women who fit the bill. As soon as one is suggested, a flaw related to one of those two ‘standards’ can be used to justify excluding her. Of course, the same could be done for any man proposed as a presidential candidate or for any current or former president. But, the statement was not made about all people, just women. And, that is the tinge of misogyny.
I don’t pay too much attention to politics, but my wife is heavily involved in the Republican party. She keeps telling me the woman here all want to see Nicky Haley run. I don’t know how good she would be.
I looked at the articles you wrote that mentions her here (There isn’t a lot but they go back to 2010). There are 3-4 that only talk about her because of what someone else said. 3 where you say negative things about things she has done, 3 where you say positive things she has done including once as an ethics hero. In one article you talk about someone being a promising successor, like Nikki Haley, which seems to indicate you view her with some favorability. I guess I’m just curious what you think of the woman.
See my response to Johnny’s list.
AOC is an indoctrinated imbecile and I have more respect for a pot holed infested stretch of asphalt than I do for her. Her presence in Congress is proof positive the the population has been dumbed down for years.
Question- Has AOC achieved first in place in inane, incompetent, irrational speech yet. I originate from her district, I am ashamed of those who voted for her.
BTW, I read Mr. Obama was awarded an EMMY for narrating a documentary on National Parks. The EMMY has arrived at a low level of importance or integrity as the Noble Prize committee.
O could have farted the score, and they would have given him an Emmy.